Another thing. The only problem with how democracy was implemented in Iraq and Afghanistan was the fact that it wasn't a bottom up process. The first thing that was needed were town councils who would listen to the voices of their people and try to get something done. Once the idea of elected representation took hold, then hold regional elections, following with national elections. That might have enabled people to trust that the system represented them.

Indeed by reading comments below I have realized the pessimism is still there among public. But we dont have alternative other than democracy. Howsoever we perceive democracy as a den of corruption, bureaucracy-politician-businessmen nexus, self aggrandizing kind of stuff but its democracy only through which we can achieve the greater objective of equality,liberty, fraternity & dignity of human being.Its importance to be better understood by people under monarchy, anarchy and oligarchy.

One of the greatest ideas to explanation to the masses I have heard. My college professors don't break it down to this basic level.

How inspiring. Superb speech. Most importantly it makes you think..

As Ron Paul said "democracy is dangerous, it should be feared. When it only takes 51% to be considered a majority, then what happens to the other 49% percent?" Minorities need protection, they need to be heard not ignored, they need to be represented by government without compromise. It should never be about putting the majority above the rights of the minority. Even if the minority is only something like 2%, they are no less meaningful or worthwhile. What if the 2% were leading scientists?

Our conversation, despite thousands of miles separating us is perfect illustration of the fact that we are one family (as humanity) and saner then we might seem at first sight.

Although purely populist in its use in the current speech, the idea of honesty in politics requires, in my view, serious consideration. The discourse about the political class as a guild of professional social engineers will eventually lead to questioning nothing less but the need of its existence. A fact Mr Stewart shows to know well. The rising mistrust to politics must be the greatest concern in his professional circles, and "losing faith in democracy" is but a private case of it.

Thank you for expressing my opinions in a reasonable method.

Our last few hundred years of democracy has given women and the poor a greater voice than they ever had. Yes, the system is imperfect, but by its very nature, we are given the potential to change and improve it further. Especially with the advent of internet communications and the potential to devolve power to more local, transparent and accountable forms of government. Democracy is an ideal, and we may never reach it, but it IS worth trying.

"Anarchy is the lack of violence and coercion." Anarchy is the absence of rulers. How rulers rule and how people who lack rulers behave is a completely separate issue.

Agreed. It's scary what's going/gone on in the UK.

My friends from IT business say they can substitute all Ministry of Economics with only one java script :)

I agree that democracy's point is its intrinsic value, the way to organize society that reflects liberty, and dignity ideals.

@OmegaX2Z

9 жыл бұрын

I agree.

@MrZAP17

8 жыл бұрын

+Ho Manh Tung Why, though? What is wrong with a more authoritarian system if it is effective? What would be the problem with, say, a benevolent dictatorship with a significant amount of oversight (to prevent corruption), if it was run by very intelligent, competent, and well-meaning people? I would agree that the best form of government is a democracy with an informed and active populace, but can it be reasonably argued that we have an informed and active populace? Often what the people want is unreasonable or unrealistic. It can also be argued that having to pander to such unreasonable expectations diminishes the effectiveness of elected officials, since it isn't always possible to do the most practical or ethical thing if it will get you voted out of office.

@rakhimukerji7937

3 ай бұрын

When people would think that thet can now run the govt competently dic tatorship would not agree to handover

Personally what turns me off from democracy is the fact that we are constantly being reminded of all it's benefits. As such it is presented as the perfect governmental system. The problem is, nothing is perfect, if you want me to believe that I have a voice, don't treat me like I'm an idiot. The system has to have downsides, a politician promising only improvement will have to neglect other areas. The first step to solving problems is to admit to them, don't hide the downsides, admit to them!

The main problem with democracy is that noone is accountable. Monarthy has 1 leader and 1 dirrection, democracy - 100 people with 100+ dirrections. So there is no movement in any dirrection. For example, Gaddafi was killed and new person could(not saying should) take his place. In democracy they screw up and noone can be charged/punished because 100 people decided to do something.

That would cost an insane amount the representatives would have no budget left to spend.

Competition is the best accountability one can imagine, that's my point. That's why I used the restaurant example, so you can see the more competition the larger the choices, and the higher the quality. Break down the services that government provides and open it up to people to provide. There's no magical properties that simply because it's done under the vestiges of a coercive monopoly (i.e. the state) that it can not be provided (with the notable exception of drawn out offensive war).

Took a lot of intensive research and deconstruction of current paradigms on my part to even consider these ideas. I have no idea how such a processed could be simplified for the general population. It's quite the river to swim against as practically every form of mass communication (with the notable exception of the internet), is under lock and key by government regulatory bodies [I guess that's why there's such a great legislative effort to regulate the internet]

I recommend to you, Mr Stewart, 'The State: Its History And Development' by Franz Oppenheimer, 'The Man Versus The State' by Herbert Spencer and 'Our Enemy, The State' by Albert Jay Nock: all being guides to your perplexity.

Please elaborate. The main theme of your point eludes me.

Does it matter if I disagree with my country's military operations overseas if I get locked in a cage for not paying the bill for said operations? What about a social program, if I disagree with it's efficacy or principles can I decide not to pay for that either? What if none of the solutions purposed are ones I consider to be efficacious, or worse, morally abhorrent. What is my means of recourse? You see there's a facade of discussion, but forced obedience is the end result.

The idea that money is what "corrupts politics" is a valid but ultimately flawed one. British politics, by *American standards* (no "dark money" etc), has been free of "monied interests" for most of its post-War history, and yet is still corrupt, ineffective *and* still in tow to economic forces. The problem is one of both participation and political economy, the latter meaning the structure of the economy overall. Greater participation and democratisation of the economy is the real key.

The same happens with staunch democratic and autocratic systems. Take for example China, India, Mexico, Honduras, El Salvador, Brazil, or any other developing nation. At the time of the Industrial Revolution, those nations were in a developing stage. It was not policy set to play as a result of good politicians, but a society that wanted something done of it. It still happens that way. Politicians and democracy do not work towards bettering society without societal uproar.

We have something like the bill of rights, sadly it wasn't as detailed and descriptive as it should've been. But there are rights, naturally rights that should always be protected no matter of the will of the majority. The problem is power, I vouch for a more voluntary system, give into what you support; not be forced into joining what you don't. If the government does good and is supported, people will support it "with money and labor", if it is bad the program will end or need reform.

Whether Cleisthenes intended this deep thought on democratic principles or not, this guy's on another level of thinking beyond his own environment.

Thank you Mr. Stewart for introducing us a new dimension of democracy

Having leaders has run it's course. Tribes in the mountains of Peru are close knit, take care of the good ones, & take care of the bad ones by not letting them get into power. We really dont have any say in our democracy. Ofcourse they pretend we do, & many ppl think they do because there are theatre exhibits such as the debates, (has anyone actually paid attn to the debates lately?) I don't think so. Why is it that we continue settling for having to pick between the lesser of 2 evils yet again

The reason people are losing faith in Democracy is because we get to vote from a set which, is simply not interested in improving the condition of the democracy. They build it on their self interests, votes, power, money.... If a talk takes George Bush Jr. as a quote, one should realize that very very few in this world think anything he said ever had a meaning. It definitely is flawed as the voting happens based on who has more influence rather than who's ideas are have more influence.

said moral is instilled in us because the society we were raised in is peaceful and there is no benefit to interpersonal violence. early humans were different. SAme brains, same body and mind,but different culture. Violence was often neccessary, and so it was not morally condemned. When the foundations of a peaceful society are removed (laws, public utilities, national economy, etc.) then violence becomes a more common phenomenon and is advantageous. Over time it becomes commonplace. Chaos.

what would be the best way to ensure that the people all have a say? I can't think of any idea other than allowing people of small group to come together and electe 1 or 2 to speak on their behalf.

hey, you should look up the Swiss political system. We can initiate or reject almost any decision simply by a regular citizen (though it is usually performed in groups) collecting a sufficient number of signatures from anyone, which in turn will put the issue up to a national vote. Also, decisions are made on community, kanton (county) and state levels. This allows the government systems who are closest to the people they affect to have the most power. The US system was originally based on us.

But to take the analogy further, now imagine that under those conditions, you're not allowed to eat at another restaurant until you go through a lengthy process of filling out forms to eat at another restaurant, maybe taking years to complete. In the mean time you must only eat what they will serve you, and all you can do is put in a vote as to who will manage the restaurant for the next 2-4 years in different managerial capacities.

Damn, people here REALLY HATE democracy. Democracy isn't perfect. It won't be. The thing about democracy is that it gives you a choice. A lot of other types of governments dont give you as many choices. Democracy allows society to choose a fellow citizen to represent them and vote for you. If you don't like what your representative is doing, THEN COMMUNICATE WITH THEM. Stewart is telling us that for democracy to work beter, we as society must act better and allow the politicns to be more honest

I think that the lack of involvement at the local level is the reason why the top 2 choices are horrible. There's a reason why there's 2 creationists are sitting in the National Science Board for the USA, one of which is running it. Lobbyists eventually get what they want because they're voices are closer to the ear of reps. The problem is that people are inherently lazy and want others to deal with things for them. We marry ourselves to parties because it simplifies everything for us.

People should decide for themselves and not for others.

"What is clear is that even dictatorships are less dangerous than no government at all." Man, voluntaryists must scare the shit out of you.

There are many, many types of democracy. Look it up yourself. I'm guessing you are thinking of direct democracy as the only form of democracy.

I vote, always have. Still i find it hard to trust politicians after seeing so much widespread corruption. Politics is a calling not a career. They are chosen representatives of the people yet many serve their own agenda and for that trust to return i want accountability. If a politician is corrupt he/she should be reprimanded meaning fired. Without a farewell bonus or relocated to another job with even more money.

couldn't have said it better myself, fantastic comment!

Not all politicians voted for SOPA and PIPA. If you don't like what your representatives are doing then you must confront them and talk to them and tell them.

I heard a quote somewhere by some famous politician (might be W. Churchill) which said that communism and democracy are both immoral/corrupt/wrong but democracy is the better of the two evils. Sums it up for me really.

We're in the 'who will watch the watchmen paradox'. Though in my opinion that's a inevitable bi-product of monopoly. You know what happens when the restaurant you're eating in sucks? You go across the street to a better restaurant. But hey put it in a political context and this is what we are 'urged' to do. If we're in a restaurant that sucks, we are expected instead to petition the management to serve higher quality food, hire more competent staff, be more efficient.

Did he just say the problem with Democracy is the 'people'? If so then I agree. Not so much the common wealth but the politicians themselves. We the people may not always know what's best for us, but at least we know it's not the same agenda as those who have power, that's for sure.

Well look there's a fundamental difference in what I would see how a bottom-up order looking and the current top-down democracy (including making it a more 'direct democracy'). We all have varying levels of expertise in different fields, and you see in our day to day lives we defer to the judgement of others who are more experienced or knowledgeable (not blindly so mind you, trust is earned rather than granted). So the one person one vote thing just doesn't make any sense to me.

The ppl in government & the majority of ppl it seems have forgotten our relationship with govt & that it is their job to uphold lawfulness, not use the job to make their houses & livestyles cushy while taking advantage of the ppl to do so. We all need to realize that govt everywhere is in breach of feduciary trust. I agree with you that they are far more = amongst each other than we are alone, or compared to them. THat is 1 of the matters what makes them in breach of trust.

Just skip to 8:40 and listen up to 10:00 to find his point. However, his point is very debatable. He claims that democracy has the following intrinsic values: liberty, dignity, equality. However, the current democratic politicians are far more equal than us common folks: Better job security, better pay, less tax (if EU pol.), better pension plans, less responsibility for their own actions/plans, they take liberties away, they bargain with lobbyists for a comfy job after they quit politics...

I'm not any kind of "anarchist", if that's what you're thinking, neither a communist, or whatever else. I just think that people should have a great impact on government, instead of just a bunch of rich corporations puppeting everything, including the government and the public, which is what seems to be happening in the past decades. I personally suspect democracy is just another way of pretending that people really have liberties that they don't really seem to have.

I don't necessarily believe that he has it 'everything right', but he makes a rather convincing case. Worth listening to for sure as he has been rather influential in forming my own views. I'm not so clear on the 'end goal' vision, but it makes sense that we start with using logic and rational argument such that we simply don't repeat our mistakes over and over again allows sophists to construct a fantasy world where people aren't being murdered every day for political reasons.

Who should deem the readiness for democracy? or we should let the people learn their fate of choosing? The mechanism of parliament (ie opposition party) should be adjusted / strengtened not the democracy.

The main problem is that he didn't do any analysis of the problems of current democratic processes, and only offers non-solutions: very few people care about chosen majors, while the UK still hasn't proportional representation. He also said that politicians know better than the people, Thus this guy will not bring needed change to democracy and is just the current establishment. For better democracy: less privileges for politicians, prop. representation, open government, more civil liberties...

Anarchy is the lack of violence and coercion. If violence and coercion are all you know, that sound like saying that everything should just be chaos. Chaos isn't bad; it's simply a collapsed state where people no longer hold to the assumptions that were false that before held them together. They need new false assumptions that are more accurate for their new mind models.

Wow thats an awesome space

I don't know... Ha, think it's good to start off very skeptical based on what most politicians say and what actually happens.

Anarchy is to have no rules for the individual. It means self-rule. So when you suggest that this exists today, you are partially correct. Anybody who believes in anarchy is by definition a sovereign and in conflict with any coalitions. Anarchists exist, but there has never been an anarchist state. There are educated dictators, I will grant you. But I believe their education is insufficient. To dictate is to abandon reasonable resolution. This is an act that people should feel ashamed of.

It is exactly the phenomena of everyone feeling they have a right to the vote which is why democracy is not the way we should structure society. The vote is the right to power over the lives of others through threats and violence. Who wouldn't want that? Only those who have learnt to distrust and dislike power, even for the masses, even for themselves.

In my opinion, a lot of the violence and crime in this world's circumstantial, due to current social structures, and a result of people's need for basic necessities to survive, such as nutritious food, adequate shelter, and clothing to keep them warm in the cold, not being met. ALSO, if one didn't have to worry about being locked up for using potentially fatal force while defending themselves and their property, and therefore if one had to fear for his life when committing a crime, there would b

A good kick? This isn't some stalled engine we're talking about here. Coercion and propaganda lie at the heart of every government. Social democracies have simply done a better job through public schooling to create a facade of 'freedom' and 'choice'. Consensus makes sense on a small scale among individual people for specific problems (and even then, not necessarily so as groups of people can make mistakes just as individual people can), but there is no 'social contract'.

I don't want to retreat from human being, or community quite the opposite in fact. It is the divisiveness of coercion that is at the core of evil. Whether you're pulling the trigger yourself or you simply profit off of the back of the system that pulls the trigger for you, it's awful around. We did not accept 'I was just following orders' arguments from Nazis, why do we accept it with the current perpetrators of empire in the world? If you wonder why there is no peace, look in the mirror.

If we want a truly representative democratic government. There is really only one way of doing it. Random selection. And with the technology we have to day it is possible to do such a thing. Of course it would have one drawback (one I feel is worth it). Everyone selected for a seat would have no choice in wether or not to take the seat. It would have to be mandatory. There are certainly a series of problems with this system, but I believe it would the best way of doing democracy.

The purest and most just form of democracy is the free market.

Who should decide the law?

Extend* .but it didn't crumble in a day either*

He spoke of a better educated public, however after reading these comments about greed and whatever that has to do with democracy...

Until it collapses under it's own weight and we start anew. Being that we currently live in the information age, I would think we're in a time where we don't have to continuously repeat these grievous errors, but perhaps that's being too optimistic.

The problem with democracy today is that it is more autocratic, where the people get to vote the leadership for a time. Yet the people do not have a say in one decision made, it's surprising in this internet age we cannot progress democracy.

+1 You sir, are right!

Thats a good idea but the one big downside i can see is that it would make it even harder for working class citizens to become politicians and the working class is under represented as it is. But perhaps a compensation scheme based on how much they earned before they became representatives?.

with so much unemployemnt i am sure it would help the economy more even if they are paid minimum wages?

We live in a mediacracy, not a democracy.

That's not what I mean when I say anarchism. Anarchism is being without archons, which means no rulers, which means no-one taking from you without your consent. A state of any color does that by definition. If "anarchists" want to simply reconfigure how the coercion will be expressed, then I want nothing to do with anarchism. Fortunately, I have my own definition of it, and we can see if our definitions meet anywhere.

Governmental power in a democracy should start at the local level and work its way up. That insures that everyone has an honest say in how there government conducts itself. My vote in the pres. Election is really worthless. But my vote for the mayor of my town is substantially greater. The only thing we need a federal government for is the safety of the collective states.

I don't discount the fact that it possibility could work.

I didn't point out that the request 'name one place as you would wish it to be were you would be safe?' includes a typo, and more importantly, makes little sense. It seems obvious that any place as I would wish it, would be a safe place. So obviously the answer would be anywhere. However, we're here for political science not linguistics. Let us just try to understand each other. Also, the N-bomb isn't helping anybody.

Why'd we still need politicians at all? Were not longer living in ancient greek. We've computers and an information speed that scratches lightspeed. Why don't invent a new democracy in a network related hierarchy? With a possibility for normal citizens to think of or introduce projects. A course of action for politics. Controlled of course, so nothing racial or unhumane comes up. It'd be way more effective. Less money would be wasted on overpaid polititians and elections. Lets make future work!

Why so many dislikes???? He's talking about FIXING! democracy Jesus just because he's a politician doesn't mean you have to dislike the video by default he is making some good points.

But does that mean we happen upon some technocratic 'managed society'. Absolutely not. See when I look at perhaps the least regulated industries (technology [cellphones. electronics etc...], information technology, internet etc..), the demands of customers are taking very seriously, and so industries shift and change, those involved must keep up to date etc... But why would someone without the foggiest idea about technology have the same amount of influence as say a Steve Jobs type?

at around 6:00 why do we have to impose ANYthing?

the money is not the problem. It's the strings attached to the money and an unscrupulous politicization who is okay with the strings.

"So name one place as you would wish it to be were you would be safe?" I don't want to be safe. I want to live life. If you're always looking to be safe, you're not living life. And you don't deserve freedom.

He's saying that Democracy needs to be given a new life, but this time focusing more on ideals (intrinsic values) and less on things (materialistic values). So if you're using the current state of Democracy as an example against his argument, it's not viable since Rory Stewart himself realizes that the current state of Democracy isn't the best. If you were to argue against his point, you would need to present a different take on how Democracy should be implemented and why it would be better.

Democracy is the best system for a government to take so long as it is constrained by a document that protects individual rights from the tyranny of the majority, direct democracy always leads to a society destroying it self, because of people trying to take what doesn't belong to them or trying to tell other people how to live there lives.

There seems to be a rather strange break in logic to understand that democracy or any government itself does not have what we are not forcibly required to feed it in terms of resources. How about we cut out the middle man, all they do is distributed money and resources around, well we have a way better mechanism for that, free trade and charity / social organizations. And it doesn't require a bunch of people with guns to hand over funds to do it.

at the 4 minute mark or so i had the thought that in Iraq and Afghanistan the problem is that we tried to impose a democratic form of government on people who didn't want it and were thus not ready for it.

You don't seem to realise that there are people in all communities still lacking a proper knowledge of what the different political systems involve. This kind of knowledge is a prerequisite of an anarchic citizen. So of course I cannot name you a society in which it would work immediately. But some people would get it right. And I think that number is edging ever closer to a practical level.

I don't think democracy is a workable system. Further I don't think that any top-down coercive hierarchy can be sustained without disastrous consequences. Really I don't see the point in continuing the cycles of history where we start off with the smallest possible governing body, a great degree of wealth is created through free exchange / free enterprise, and then the governing body grows like a tumor to consume the host, ending up with some dictatorship or empire.

They did not get SOPA, PIPA or ACTA through in the EU.

Bullying is allowed by the collective denial of its roots. The root of the coercive society that we current have is taxation, or the belief that using guns and coercion is how to interact with people. Without guns, there would be but chaos. From this assumption we get compulsory schooling, which has as an inevitable result... bullying.

"Well there is a way to find out. Please travel to a place without governance, then let me know if you are still alive in 6 months time." There aren't any places where people don't want to be enslaved to a high enough degree to make 2nd-tier slavery a possibility. The place to start is Here and Now, as it always was. When there's no-where left to go, the unprecedented explosion of freedom from the inside out happens.

It's a method of consensus decision making by discussion. As such, if only the "powerful" are in power, it's not democracy.

Society is evolving. Violence is decreasing. You ask for an example of a perfect society from history? That is like asking me to show you what the ipad will look like in 50 years. You say you want utopia? The only way that can happen is if we all act like citizens of it.

well people are frustrated in government but instead of reforming it they feel as though it should go away entirely, though i agree the latter is not the answer

Well if no one has that right then no individual or group should have that power.

Even if you get money out of the politics, there will still be people that are able to highly influence Politics, Economy and the Media.

I couldn't agree with you more. Every citizen should know what democracy is and fight for human rights always, then we could push the development of the country. That is why China is hard to own democracy because most of the citizens don't know what is it.

the public is exactly why I don't trust Democracy.

nice innocuous talk. Democracy is better than most dictatorships, but it is only as good as the values of the people who vote.

Rory, we were doing so well, right until the last bit, and then you lost me. Let me explain-- the only reason a politician might not trust the public, would be because they feel they must have something to hide, to be disingenuous about or not fully honest about, something they don't want in the hands or in the minds of the public. Give me a politician who is comfortable in speaking with total candor, and you'll have someone that the public will readily trust.

You got that right.....unfortunately.

If i was to summarize what he said, that is exactly it.

I