Тёмный
No video :(

Is democracy really the best form of government? | Steven Pinker | Big Think 

Big Think
Подписаться 7 млн
Просмотров 95 тыс.
50% 1

Is democracy really the best form of government?
New videos DAILY: bigth.ink
Join Big Think Edge for exclusive video lessons from top thinkers and doers: bigth.ink/Edge
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Now in practice," says Steven Pinker, "no one has ever developed a democracy that works particularly well if judged in absolute terms. Democracies are always messy, they’re always unequal. They always involve lobbying and power grabs. But all the alternatives so far have been worse. Democracies seldom go to war with each other. They have higher standards of living. They have higher levels of happiness. They have higher levels of health. And they’re the obvious preferred destinations for people who vote with their feet. The whole world wants to live in a democracy. It’s an ongoing project. It’s currently under threat from a number of directions, but there’s never been a time in which we’ve had a well-functioning democracy in terms of meeting all the criteria in a high school civics class."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
STEVEN PINKER:
Steven Pinker is an experimental psychologist who conducts research in visual cognition, psycholinguistics, and social relations. He grew up in Montreal and earned his BA from McGill and his Ph.D. from Harvard. Currently Johnstone Professor of Psychology at Harvard, he has also taught at Stanford and MIT. He has won numerous prizes for his research, his teaching, and his nine books, including The Language Instinct, How the Mind Works, The Blank Slate, The Better Angels of Our Nature, and The Sense of Style. He is an elected member of the National Academy of Sciences, a two-time Pulitzer Prize finalist, a Humanist of the Year, a recipient of nine honorary doctorates, and one of Foreign Policy’s “World’s Top 100 Public Intellectuals” and Time’s “100 Most Influential People in the World Today.” He is Chair of the Usage Panel of the American Heritage Dictionary, and writes frequently for The New York Times, The Guardian, and other publications.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FOLLOW BIG THINK:
📰BigThink.com: bigth.ink
🧔Facebook: bigth.ink/face...
🐦Twitter: bigth.ink/twitter
📸Instagram: bigth.ink/Inst...
📹RU-vid: bigth.ink/youtube
✉ E-mail: info@bigthink.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TRANSCRIPT:
STEVEN PINKER: Probably the most famous product of the Enlightenment was the American Declaration of Independence and Constitution, a blueprint for a form of governance that tried to get the benefits of government-seeing as how anarchy is worse because you get spirals of vendetta and feuding and violence. You don’t get the coordination of large-scale economies without some kind of governance. Trying to get the benefits of governance without the perennial hazard that anyone given a bit of power will aggrandize their power and become despotic.
So the checks and balances of American democracy were a way of - I think of it as negotiating a middle route between the violence of anarchy (and anarchy does lead to violence-We were never noble savages that lived in harmony. Regions of the world without government are almost invariably violent) but also avoiding the violence of tyranny. Mainly you give someone power, they’re going to use it to maximize their benefits, their power, their longevity of their reign at the expense of people. Democracy is a way of steering between these extremes, of having a government that exerts just enough violence to prevent people from preying on each other without preying on the people itself.
Now in practice no one has ever developed a democracy that works particularly well if judged in absolute terms. Democracies are always messy, they’re always unequal. They always involve lobbying and power grabs. But all the alternatives so far have been worse. Democracies seldom go to war with each other. They have higher standards of living. They have higher levels of happiness. They have higher levels of health. And they’re the obvious preferred destinations for people who vote with their feet. The whole world wants to live in a democracy. It’s an ongoing project. It’s currently under threat from a number of directions, but there’s never been a time in which we’ve had a well-functioning democracy in terms of meeting all the criteria in a high school civics class.

Опубликовано:

 

5 июл 2018

Поделиться:

Ссылка:

Скачать:

Готовим ссылку...

Добавить в:

Мой плейлист
Посмотреть позже
Комментарии : 689   
@CJ_1406
@CJ_1406 Год назад
"The best part of democracy, everyone can vote. The worst part of democracy, *everyone can vote."* - A wise man
@UnchainedEruption
@UnchainedEruption 9 месяцев назад
Reminds me of Norm MacDonald. He always said the best jokes are where the set up and the punchline are the same.
@ELGtheMAN
@ELGtheMAN 3 года назад
The problem is most people in the democratic world would not want their voting rights to be abolished because they think they can influence the government. The fact is, no matter who you voted for, policies will remain pretty much the same because of corporate interest. The ones who could influence the government are NOT the voters, but the super rich aka lobbyists and corporate giants.
@UnchainedEruption
@UnchainedEruption 9 месяцев назад
It's not big business, at least not exclusively. Voters have no real say because most states are either hard blue or hard red, so that only swing states actually make a difference. And then within swing states, you have to hope and pray that the districts have not been gerrymandered to screw your vote out of mattering. And even then smaller states have more electoral power per voter than larger states (although larger states still have way more electors) AND EVEN THEN the electors are not mandated to vote for who their constituents selected, just encouraged (though defiance is rare).
@vincentkingsdale8334
@vincentkingsdale8334 7 месяцев назад
Thus, fascism
@staringtako
@staringtako 3 месяца назад
and jews
@GaryG63
@GaryG63 2 месяца назад
You moron the right people elected would get rid of lobbyists and life long politicians. Prosecutors would charge these criminals and profiteering
@user-kp5kg5dl8h
@user-kp5kg5dl8h 6 лет назад
You absolutely CANNOT just say that the whole world wants to live in a democracy. Where I live in SE Asia, there are plenty of people who outright hate it. How did he come to such a gross assumption?!
@JoAuJan
@JoAuJan 7 месяцев назад
I live in America, I am ok with democracy but if it had to be changed I would go for anarchy, if you had to choose a replacement system for your country what would you choose?
@TheH8redd
@TheH8redd 6 месяцев назад
@@JoAuJan Just put it this way, as soon as you allow anybody to rule over you, YOU ARE NOT FREE. I would go for anarchy anytime. Goverments are useless, because they don't give anything of value, because they don't produce anything of value. They are just there to take your money. Put it this way, when you are at work, the company is paying you to tell you what to do. Goverments?, you have to pay them to be told what to do. Which is one more logical? In a work environment, the employer PAYS you in exchange of your services, and they get tpo decide what you will be doing, because they PAY you. Goverments are taking your money, send you to jail if you don't pay your taxes or seize everything you own. and they still tell you what to do. This is extorsion. And if you think that politicians care about you, you are more endoctrinated than I thought. They only care about themselves and about how much they can take from you, cause greed is a fathomless pit.
@awesomespark73
@awesomespark73 5 месяцев назад
@@JoAuJan A true constitutional republic based on liberty as it was. modern democracy is susceptible to tyranny of the majority and the constant erosion of constitutional safeguards moves the country closer towards it.
@JoAuJan
@JoAuJan 5 месяцев назад
@@awesomespark73 all I meant is if we had to switch from democracy, I would rather do anarchy than anything else.
@jere.nurkka
@jere.nurkka 5 месяцев назад
People want to live in what ever system they are brainwashed to believe is the best.
@SteveLedger
@SteveLedger 6 лет назад
I find those tiles that appear while speaker is still talking 20 seconds before the end of the video to be very rude indeed.
@Xlr8t
@Xlr8t 2 месяца назад
Stop whining. Jesus
@Roar902
@Roar902 6 лет назад
Real democracy is based on meritocracy, people get what they earn. Social democracy is based on who you know and getting votes.
@pritamsah535
@pritamsah535 3 года назад
No, it is not! What about social structures? We ignore them?
@guyoflife
@guyoflife 3 года назад
Democracy involves the masses making decisions. It can be used poorly or well. I think we need more direct democracy.
@normalhuman6581
@normalhuman6581 3 года назад
Lol.. No
@sucram1018
@sucram1018 3 года назад
@@guyoflife Some people shouldn't be allowed to vote nor make decisions on certain issues.
@guyoflife
@guyoflife 3 года назад
@@sucram1018 people should have a say in decisions to the degree they are effected by them.
@pongop
@pongop 4 месяца назад
Anarchy is peace. Anarchy is freedom. We have lived for hundreds of thousands of years without government, and it wasn't always violent.
@gianabanilla4017
@gianabanilla4017 25 дней назад
your logic is soooo flawed, your saying a world without rules and policy will prosper?
@pongop
@pongop 25 дней назад
@@gianabanilla4017 I'm saying a world without hierarchical social organization and systems of domination. We humans did prosper this way for 99% of our history, and some communities continue to do so.
@pongop
@pongop 25 дней назад
@@gianabanilla4017 My logic isn't flawed, your familiarity and understanding are limited. But we're all here to learn. Start with Emma Goldman's writings. She's amazing!
@Eric_D_6
@Eric_D_6 6 лет назад
“It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government, except all those others that have been tried” - Winston Churchill.
@luc7478
@luc7478 3 года назад
He is a war criminal.
@TopLobster11
@TopLobster11 3 года назад
The great thing about Democracy is it cannot go horribly wrong when the people on top get little paranoid.
@giacamojones2622
@giacamojones2622 3 года назад
@@luc7478 he had to do all those bad things else hitler would of won
@luc7478
@luc7478 3 года назад
@@giacamojones2622 I guess it's really a matter of perspective
@pixie6740
@pixie6740 3 года назад
Quoting winston Churchill??
@KUNGFFUPANDA9O87LKJ7
@KUNGFFUPANDA9O87LKJ7 5 месяцев назад
To all those people who are against democracy visit countries that don't have democracy then you will never complain,I know its not perfect but its better than others believe me
@jonah1044
@jonah1044 3 года назад
There is no “coordination” in American democracy.
@levelzanimations
@levelzanimations 3 года назад
American democracy isn't true democracy. It is also too much far left political spectrum
@Dominikmj
@Dominikmj 6 лет назад
This hasn’t been really a “big thought”. I could have summed up the same points, without much thinking about it: democracy is not perfect, but at this point the best system we do have...
@theeternal6890
@theeternal6890 2 года назад
No. Better systems exists as ideas but not on ground and that are too underrated to be in limelight.
@williammorgan5987
@williammorgan5987 2 года назад
It is not. Take a look around. It’s 100% solely based on money.
@AmazingStoryDewd
@AmazingStoryDewd Год назад
@@williammorgan5987 all societies are and that's not going to change
@Craznar
@Craznar 6 лет назад
Common democracy isn't a form of government, it is a form of selecting a government. I think in Switzerland they actually have a democratic form of government - but what most of us think of as democracy is not a form of government.
@shanewillbur1325
@shanewillbur1325 6 лет назад
Common democracy doesn't scale very well. You need a common culture for it to work.
@havenbastion
@havenbastion 3 месяца назад
How DARE you add nuance in a RU-vid comments section!
@angelic8632002
@angelic8632002 6 лет назад
I think the takeaway from this is that if you want something good and long lasting, there are no shortcuts. No one person will come and fix all your problems. We all have to shoulder the burden together, and fight for something that benefits as many as possible without making individual lives pointless.
@fss1704
@fss1704 6 лет назад
please watch steffan molineaux channel, don't be mistaken, listen a little if you don't like some arguments before giving up.
@fss1704
@fss1704 6 лет назад
makers vs takers
@angelic8632002
@angelic8632002 6 лет назад
+fss1704 I am well aware of who he is and versed in his thought process. I also have his channel blocked here on youtube, which should give you an idea of what I think of his opinions. He fairly often misses the larger picture, while some of his thoughts might make sense in a limited framework.
@Musikmaker658
@Musikmaker658 3 года назад
Yeah, ok now if you could transform that into a constitution please.
@tankritsuwan3376
@tankritsuwan3376 Год назад
Democracy doesn't work with minority group if majority people want to against Will minority without respect like Hitler do with Jew(Majority German people in that time). But we may have ALTERNATIVE DEMOCRACY
@floyd920
@floyd920 3 года назад
Maybe Socrates was right when he said that not just everyone can choose good leaders. You need well-qualified people. Who is well educated on his job. Democracy only works well if you have highly intelligent people voting. If people are under-educated or not well informed, they will make poor choices. When people start selecting candidates by qualification instead of popularity, they will have that perfect government that they wish for. Like the candy man who gives you candy compared to the dentist who makes you suffer pain to make you well again. Selecting good leaders is an art and not born into you. You must know all about who you are voting for.
@keysemerson3771
@keysemerson3771 2 года назад
"Perfect government" by imperfect humans and imperfect social institutions is an impossibility.
@floyd920
@floyd920 2 года назад
@@keysemerson3771 As of today's times, this is the best form of government that we have. In a republic, the people are the ones who create laws that protect it's people from arrest and persecution. Without this, we are under the wimps of the leaders and their parliament. Our history has proven this to be true many times over. In China, Xi-Jinping has total control over its people. He has proven his power to control everyone under his power. Looking back in history, we have people like Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Benito Mussolini, Kim Jong-il, and Ho Chi Minh. They all did great harm to their country and people. I would rather live under the laws set down by the people of the land you are living in and not one dictator. I want to be free to pursue my dreams in life. I don't need a dictator to take charge of it.
@keysemerson3771
@keysemerson3771 2 года назад
@@floyd920 I agree completely. I made no statement in support of any form of despotism, dictatorship or totalitarianism. I merely commented on the fact that imperfect humans can never form perfect institutions or governments.
@lhayles6974
@lhayles6974 6 лет назад
We are a Republic (rule of law) with a representative democracy(few chosen to represent the many). With a Constitution and a Bill of (human)Rights, our founder's set a strong base to build on. A 2 party system has distorted governments role as George Washington warned parties would.
@TheTrueAdept
@TheTrueAdept Год назад
No, he just ignored reality and the human condition...
@UnchainedEruption
@UnchainedEruption 9 месяцев назад
Representative democracy is genius because it gives the illusion of choice when in fact ordinary people have no real choice.
@olearris
@olearris 6 лет назад
America is not an example of a democracy. America is an oligarchy at best. We need to make America a democracy and make the votes count. Fight for the people not the 1%
@Tary88
@Tary88 6 лет назад
The one percent are the best and brightest people though. What do you mean by fight? Steal if id wager to guess, but i'll let you weigh in.
@Kavriel
@Kavriel 6 лет назад
olearris this is incorrect. Wealth distribution has nothing to do with the country being a democracy or not. If the people don't vote for a candidate from "the one percent" then the president isn't a one percenter. People still have the power.
@finthechat7134
@finthechat7134 6 лет назад
Tary88 Do not the rich employ people who were educated in public schools? If so would they not owe the state for services? For without the state there would be no educated workers. Also, they use public roads to ship their goods. No man is self-made. They all used the backbone that was created by the govt(aka the people). Most often themselves they have been benefactors of government assistance. Whether it's through bankruptcy, tax credits, straight up bail-outs or subsidization. The rich are actually stealing from you. They are robbing you blind. They pay off politicians so they don't need to pay their fair share. They pay off politicians for handouts. They pay off politicians to favor their business over others. They hoard trillions off shore so as to not pay back society what they owe.
@thatf_inguy8220
@thatf_inguy8220 6 лет назад
america is a technically a republic, but to the extent that its a democracy, the failure in its current governance lies with the people. Less than 60% of the eligible voting public actually shows up in a presidential election year. Less than 40% show up in midterms. Im sure those numbers are much lower when there are no federal elections. You cant have a democracy if people dont actually voice their opinion. And no, shouting your opinion on social media doesnt count. The reason politicians accept bribes from big companies is because these companies have filled the "constituency gap" left behind by so many non-voters. If 95%+ of the eligible voters got themselves just a little informed and actually showed up to every primary and every general election, there's no amount of gerrymandering or voter suppression or money in politics that could stop their will. People blaming the system itself is like blaming a car manufacturer for a blown engine when you didnt change the oil for 50,000 miles. We have seen this same system work well throughout American history. We've built institutions, we abolished slavery and had a massive civil rights movement. We made it through a civil war. If everyone participates, the issues will be resolved. If people opt-out of the system, there will be a special interest there to take your place as your representative's constituent.
@Tary88
@Tary88 6 лет назад
The rich don't pay their share? Now I've heard it all.
@kokigami5492
@kokigami5492 6 лет назад
In the history of the human civilisation, democracy is still new. It might take another thousand years before it balances out but I have to agree, it's the better version of governing thus far.
@Infiltrator_
@Infiltrator_ 4 года назад
KoKi GAmI Agreed the only problem with democracy is that everyone has a opinion and some people’s point isn’t valid this creates a problem that can only be solved if one side of the argument can get more support.
@maxwellsequation4887
@maxwellsequation4887 3 года назад
If you pick a piece of garbage from a trash can, polish it, and compare with the rest of the garbage in the bin, it is the best but it's still trash. Democracy is better than communism or fascism, but it's still trash.
@omaralkammash9225
@omaralkammash9225 2 года назад
Why can't we just have a meritocracy? In my opinion, governance is a skill, the same way engineering is or being an artist is a skill. By this fact alone would mean that not everyone is eligible to vote for leaders, let alone become presidents. Voting in elections itself is a skill, one has to have great knowledge in politics and economics (matters of governance) to make an efficient vote. And since sadly we will always have some ignorance within society, this is why democracy is not the best in my opinion. Can't we just have a system where we have a senate of experts in governance, and let them vote the the right man at the right time? Since these guys would vote based on expertise and knowledge, not based on emotions like the average voter.
@memes4life26
@memes4life26 2 года назад
@@omaralkammash9225 If only a small about of people have power then they will abuse it.
@omaralkammash9225
@omaralkammash9225 2 года назад
@@memes4life26 and who told you that under a democracy a large amount of people have power? Only the elites who can fund their campaigns have power under a democracy, practically speaking.
@Woopor
@Woopor Год назад
I think the best form of government would be to have an AI. Not a true robot or sentient being, but a system of algorithms so complex and designed to know exactly how to ensure all people can get their necessary things in life, without the issue of corrupted people to ruin it all. Add science and math to anything and it will make things a million times better.
@UnchainedEruption
@UnchainedEruption 9 месяцев назад
That's exceptionally stupid, and you're the kind of idiot to blindly believe what lies ChatGPT creates. This is the same fallacy as thinking God is the creator of everything. Well, uh, who made God? In this case, whoever writes the algorithm is just as susceptible to bias and corruption as anybody else. The a.i. is just a mathematical extension of whatever ideology its programmers had. Worse even, because the a.i. might even invent bullshit that nobody wants or supports.
@cashewnuttel9054
@cashewnuttel9054 Месяц назад
No way will human beings allow themselves to be ruled over by machines.
@e4r281
@e4r281 6 лет назад
One of the statements made : "You don't get the coordination of a large scale economy without some kind of governance". It seems crypto-currencies tend to prove the other way around.
@Musikmaker658
@Musikmaker658 3 года назад
Yeah, because the people lost faith in the governance. Not because crypto is the philosophers stone. Edit: meaning, it doesn't make bitcoins a safer thing to invest in just because the other system stutters
@PaulAtreidesXIII
@PaulAtreidesXIII 6 лет назад
a representative democracy. YES
@shanewillbur1325
@shanewillbur1325 6 лет назад
a representative democracy, in the form of a PArliment...not a republic.
@Kavriel
@Kavriel 6 лет назад
Not surprised in the least to hear him say that, it's a perfectly good argument
@3self
@3self 6 лет назад
We are intelligent, complex species, i know we can come up with new ways,new ideas to improve upon our government structure. Change must happen, luckily change has, and will always be closely attached to our existence.
@dheemonchutia9878
@dheemonchutia9878 3 года назад
What are some ideas? Do you have social media?
@maxwellsequation4887
@maxwellsequation4887 3 года назад
@@dheemonchutia9878 Idk, maybe a form of government which is like democracy, but only well educated ( in the matter of economics, government, etc.) have a council and get to vote. The candidates should at least be absolute masters of economics and governmental studies, and voters and candidates should be completely aware of current situations, and they get to vote ( which will exclude me from voters list). Pretty sure that would be waaaaaaaaay better. Commoners are stupid and don't actually have an opinion, they are just sheep lead by violent shepherds. Most opinions they have are stupid and uninformed. Also, it doesn't make sense that they vote the problem solver not the problems. They don't know their candidate or his qualifications, they are just dumbass tribalists.
@masterphillips
@masterphillips 6 лет назад
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." America's a republic, thank God.
@Justwantahover
@Justwantahover 4 года назад
That is a quote from Winston Churchill. He also said democracy is the worst government system and all the others are even worse.
@MonkeyDIvan
@MonkeyDIvan 4 года назад
masterphillips America's a democratic republic :)
@tylercarter3450
@tylercarter3450 6 лет назад
I love democracies! I mean, in what other political system could a linguist pass as an expert on governance?
@DvDick
@DvDick 6 лет назад
I always toyed with ideas about alternate forms of government that could be better than democracy. One idea is basically a slight and modern tweak on enlightened absolutism: basically we determine scientifically what psychological traits make a person most suited for handling power without being overwhelmed by it, then we screen the population for people with said traits and pick a monarch (or a small oligarchy) from these people based on other important parameters that could aid in governing a country; then we give the choice to them to become head of state and so start a period of education to prepare them properly. This way you have a government which is formed by the best possible people, those who are intelligent, wise, very resistant to corruption and so on. Another idea would be to drop humans altogether and design an AI to handle government. AIs would be perfect at decision making since they would be able to process huge amounts of data and elaborate an ideal course of action. Also with some precaution we could make it totally incorruptible by people with the ability to mess with it. Of course I'm not saying that this ARE better than democracy, but still, they are funny thought experiments.
@TheStubertos
@TheStubertos 2 года назад
I really like the AI idea, so long as they consider human rights etc.
@UnchainedEruption
@UnchainedEruption 9 месяцев назад
There is no man who can resist temptation. Haven't you heard the famous saying, "Power corrupts. Absolute power, corrupts absolutely. Good men are bad men."
@justcomments1239
@justcomments1239 5 лет назад
Monarchy vs Democracy Monarchy: The king steals from the people. He reigns his whole life and passes the state down as inheritance to his children, therefore he cares about its future capital value. When a monarch goes to war, he hires private mercenaries and since they are expensive he tries to win battles with absolute minimal loss of life, the result is war as a sort of sport where civilians often spectate from the side. A monarchy's legislation is usually centered around protection of private property and not much else, this is good for business as changing legislation can make planning more difficult. Democracy: Everyone has the opportunity to steal from everyone else. Once in power the president or prime minister is only a limited caretaker and so must loot as quickly as possible (what isn't looted now, cannot be looted later). When a democracy goes to war, it is a total war with civilian conscription. Since its ideologically driven there are no territorial limits to their desired expansion (a monarch may want to reclaim an old piece of territory). Legislation under democracy grows by thousands of laws every year, laws which change as different political parties gain power, this makes business planning very difficult, which means people will avoid investing in long production processes.
@MisterKorihor
@MisterKorihor 11 дней назад
I wonder why humanity doesn't conduct small-scale experiments to try and improve upon democracy. A couple of approaches that might work are: (1) Only allow taxpayers to vote (and perhaps weigh their vote based upon how much they pay in taxes). This might curtail excess government spending. (2) Require voters to first pass a test on basic economics, history, etc. This might increase the likelihood of voters making good decisions.
@loopiloop
@loopiloop 4 года назад
We need a decentralized transparent government that adheres strictly to the scientific method.
@Josearnaldomanuel2
@Josearnaldomanuel2 6 лет назад
Definitely not if the population is just plain bad or incompetent. The best kind of government is not the one that caters to the whim of the majority, but the one that produces the best results for everybody. Basically, Pure Democracy will only work in a perfect world where every person is out to help everybody. Otherwise it's just a weak point to be exploited by the greedy and corrupt, or to be corroded by the ignorance of the masses. Break the cycle, vote Super A.I.
@desiputtar89
@desiputtar89 4 года назад
I prefer technocracy over democracy.
@dead34311
@dead34311 4 года назад
Yup people don't even know right now such a term exists...sad:(
@pollutedmindmusic
@pollutedmindmusic 6 лет назад
I love when people say anarchy leads to violence cuz like, we aren't an anarchistic society but theres still tremendous amounts of violence
@sorenlampe951
@sorenlampe951 3 года назад
if you wanna see how anarchy would look like go and play some hours of rust. anarchy = survival of the fittest. the strong ones dominate the weak ones.
@pollutedmindmusic
@pollutedmindmusic 3 года назад
@@sorenlampe951 sorry mate, hate to be the bearer of bad news, but video games and real life are vastly different
@sorenlampe951
@sorenlampe951 3 года назад
@@pollutedmindmusic yea but your argumentation is even more stupid. You say ppl in anarchy wouldnt be violent because theyre already violent yet? that doesnt makes sense at all
@pollutedmindmusic
@pollutedmindmusic 3 года назад
@@sorenlampe951 ew no, im saying anarchy doesnt make people violent, as people are already violent, violence will always exist
@sorenlampe951
@sorenlampe951 3 года назад
@@pollutedmindmusic but they will even get more violent if there are no laws in my expectation
@arrowstheorem1881
@arrowstheorem1881 3 года назад
Deng Xiao Penn said it does not matter if the cat is black or white. A Cat is good as long as it can catch the mice. But Deng Xiao Ping is also making an assumption what is a good cat. Good according to who? Different people Will and Must have different definitions. So, he would be right if his definition is narrowly lifting 800million out of poverty in exchange for murders at TianAnMen or killings of Tibetans or Minority ethnic people there. By the way, who audited it's 800million and not 700million? Let me cut to the chase. My point is what Deng said is right only if the Ruler is really Ultruistic. This means a Saint is required here. Mere mortals Deng is not perfect. If he is not perfect, can you expect a flawless system? Likewise, Democracy can work if the ruler is incorruptible and Ultruistic and wise and resourceful. Therefore, I agree with Deng but based on additional assumption of altruism. Where Deng is wrong is his assumption and definition and the fact that it's not just Dictatorship which can be the best form of govt. Democracy also can be the best form if done right. For example, a Benevolent Dictatorship can be a Democracy in terms of allowing elections. The style is dictatorial but elections allowed. Hybrid is what I talking about.
@racewiththefalcons1
@racewiththefalcons1 2 года назад
A true democracy is when people (everyone) vote on _policies_ directly through ranked-choice voting, which the United States has been set up to prevent. We have to register to vote, and we do not vote on policies at a federal level. Many primary elections are closed. We don't have ranked-choice voting except in Alaska and Maine. We don't even vote for the president, we vote for unelected electors who choose the president and are under no obligation to follow majority preference. The Senate exists to kill bills passed in the House of Representatives that might take power away from the ruling class, because it's a lot easier for billionaires and corporations to buy 51 Senators than 218 members of the House. The policies most popular in the US today are not passed by either party even when they hold complete control, because they work for their class interests, not the interests of the working people. Every single step in the electoral process has been strategically designed, intentionally, to ensure your vote counts for nothing. You will never vote you way into material change. You can never vote your way out of oppression. Voting exists strictly to keep us from rioting in the streets and demanding the rights that are ours as human beings, which, not coincidentally, is the manner in which most power in history was wrested from the grip of the elite. And as Lucy Parsons once famously said, "Never be deceived that the rich will allow you to vote away their wealth."
@kbtken
@kbtken 6 лет назад
Constitutional Republics work best for large countries. Small countries seem to prefer socialist states. Democracy works as a distraction for small groups stranded and forced to live together, until a socialist or fascist strong man takes control
@ZdkDzk
@ZdkDzk 6 лет назад
We also need to consider that democratic governments can take different forms too achieve similar goals.
@rizmacadillac
@rizmacadillac 6 месяцев назад
This is an interesting presentation. I might modify the question to ask "Is STABLE DEMOCRACY really the best form of government?" What would Plato think? And where do we put "Propaganda"? We may be asking the wrong question we emphasize "form of government and ignore everything else. When I was in College I was introduced to a form of business - not a common stock corporation - that was supposed to be or become Economic Democracy. But after a coupe of years what I met were people wanting to talk about a Communist Dictatorship. But then I was reading about certain states in Switzerland that operate on a form of Direct Democracy. And we have to ask if our citizens are informed or brainwashed / forced to rubber stamp the decisions of our leaders. If we have a democracy it is unreasonable to expect everyone to be the same. Perhaps an Engineer wants to Paint on the weekend or retire to a life in the country as a Painter, but an Art History Professor and an Engineer who Paints are different people and will react differently to democracy. I'd simply suggest that our society and it's people have to be educated as to the importance of Democracy and we need a social and economic structure (and anything else our educated elite can think of) to keep Democracy. I might point out that in 2024 as I write this I have been reading about one Presidential Candidate who claims he is being persecuted and betrayed and harassed and to be honest I have heard comments from voters who believe this Candidate for President is our Savior Jesus Christ who came to earth (according to scripture) as a King. I might emphasize that the Military and National Defense is one of the primary reasons given for geographic regions forming a unified government. The Military training is rigorous and "chain of command" and "obedience of orders" are instilled into soldiers. I recently came across a contradictory concept called (I believe it was called) "moral anarchy" which was the belief that we are all "moral anarchist" and might refuse to obey orders we believed to be immoral. The lecture pointed out one Nazi who used the defense that he was "obeying orders" yet still he was executed. But I recall my early military training - and indeed my training at home by parents and religion - and I was a maniac when it came to obeying orders and the demands of my family. I am simply not sure that my devotion to orders and obedience to the rule of Law necessarily makes me a good advocate for modern democracy. To some extent I live a life devoted to obedience that and perhaps this is the sort of "command" system I believe in or respond to.
@coleman4807
@coleman4807 4 года назад
The Thing about government is that there isn’t a perfect government there is always something wrong with a government, weather it’s a democracy where everyone’s opinion gets heard, a lot of people’s opinions are not optimal and could kill the government, but something like a republic the people could vote for an elected representative, but what if that opinion on that vote isn’t optimal. But when people talk about how a lot of people’s opinions aren’t optimal they start to think about how only some people should be able to vote. The down side to that is that not everyone gets to vote, that is taking away your freedom and right to vote. There is nothing called the perfect government, there will always be the bad and the good. We try to fill in the bad with ICE, or Obamacare, planned parenthood, etc.
@omaralkammash9225
@omaralkammash9225 2 года назад
The problem with democracy is that it assumes that "everyone" has perfect information on politics, which is false. The best form of government in theory is when you can have the right man at the right time, where he/she would be best to govern in the selected time frame. Maybe a Republican system where you have a senate of elites (and by elites I mean those who have the most information of how a government should find solutions and govern), these elites would elect a president based on what challenges and problems the country faces, and when the man is not needed anymore, the senate would have full right to remove the president from power and reelect a new one based on the interests of the country. No need for a specific amount of years, if the senate sees you not up to the task, you're out of office, this will encourage presidents to actually govern well.
@soonny002
@soonny002 6 лет назад
Hmm... time will tell. There's still China and Singapore.
@soonny002
@soonny002 6 лет назад
Yeah I know. I'm just saying that time will tell if authoritarian regimes are better than democracies. Last I looked, China and Singapore are doing fine.
@Infiltrator_
@Infiltrator_ 4 года назад
Circe China isn’t doing fine tho I’ve got friends there and they all hate it and I’ve been there myself it’s not that good. People are really but only the rich are happy. You should see what China has been doing to people who speak against the CCP doctors who speak out about bad health care are being silenced as well. I don’t know much about Singapore so I won’t be speaking about that.
@RTL2L
@RTL2L 6 лет назад
It just has to be a direct democracy: a referendum for almost every major political decision.
@jagmarz
@jagmarz 6 лет назад
Only if voting is mandatory.
@timothyday5187
@timothyday5187 6 лет назад
In Switzerland that works pretty well but some countries like the UK, people are incredibly lazy to go and vote cuz we have been having a lot of referendums and elections in the past years. Idk people here are weird
@democratiedabord5165
@democratiedabord5165 6 лет назад
Yes. Major political decisions should be made by the people by referendum rather than for example by the Supreme Court (or even merely by an unelected swing member of the Supreme Court).
@loaihamada
@loaihamada 4 года назад
that's even worse , to allow the the stupid ignorant people to have a say in real decisions is a catastrophe
@Striker163videos
@Striker163videos 6 лет назад
I mean for any of you that have read Government’s End, by Jonathan Rauch, we already know that Democracy has an Achilles Heel. It is called Demosclerosis.
@ConorCondor
@ConorCondor 9 месяцев назад
Democracy should evolve, but we are too afraid of it. The main problems in the current sistem are the lack of power of decision (due to the high population and diferences between us) and the value of the individual votes. A geniocracy solves both of those problems giving only people with the capacity to figure out what to do and the rest waiting to be ruled, not in a deminishing way, but as an understanding of our individual capacities and limitations.
@baronghede2365
@baronghede2365 5 месяцев назад
I am a big fan of the Republic, Blessed Be.
@stevezhang2891
@stevezhang2891 5 лет назад
one of the reasons I don't support for socalled "democoracy" is that, why should idiots have the same right to vote, what would they vote for? Hitler?
@shadfurman
@shadfurman 6 лет назад
Anarchy doesn't lead to violence Pinker, that shoddy argument was beneath you. Anarchy HAS lead to violence, I think I could make a case the government has committed MUCH more violence throughout history. The structure of government can reduce violence (Can't eliminate it, violence is what government is, just or not, laws are enforced with violence till you fill the prisons with non-violent "criminals") The structure of society, or culture, can reduce violence too. In an anarchist society, you're not claiming a deified godhead of government has just authority to violate the sole self sovereignty of individuals to "keep the peace". Go argue with some smart anarchists, cause it seems to be you either have a faith based belief in government as your lord and savior, or your just completely ignorant of the last century of arguments for anarchy.
@jaycejohnson6846
@jaycejohnson6846 6 лет назад
Non-civilized societies are not lawless and violent like Pinker makes them out to be. It depends on the individual society. But Pinker has been proven wrong in thinking violence was reduced with the coming of more complex cultures, humans were much less violent as hunter-gatherers.
@madn93
@madn93 6 лет назад
Democracy is not only American, it is rather employed in better ways in other nation-states if we let reality speak. Democracy also lost its definition through the years. It became anything and everything and no moral, ethical, logical, compassionate limits and measures are put into its practice. Democracy may seem essential, but as of recently, the western countries are urged to demote democracy as a "bad" ideology and not a way of practice. No more finding a common ground nor resolving issues by sincere and honest debates. Democracy is nothing without having the desired outcomes that benefit the people regardless of differences. Democracy is not about enforcing and implying by one mass versus the other but by cooperation, better the life of others, and respect the differences. The reason is no longer a part of the current democracy trend. It is transferred to being a cause of "us versus them" and if not, "where is the democracy?" The concept of democracy changed and been altered in the recent years, analysis of political behavior, either domestic or international, proves so.
@fatehaligolani7751
@fatehaligolani7751 6 лет назад
Democracy is not the best way of governing a state just because this system is dependent on a lot of people, who could not be trusted. If any one root of the tree is damaged, the entire tree would suffer the weakness. Similarly, if any one in this system is found to be corrupt and lazy, then the entire system would suffer. Instead, this system needs an enhancement in such a way that every person in power is restricted to use their power effectively for their specified purpose. A system where all the social problems are considered and solved quickly, to improve the quality of life of the people living in that society.
@graspunwrapped1124
@graspunwrapped1124 2 года назад
In the 1828 Noah Webster dictionary 'democracy' is defined in this way: "Government by the people; a form of government, in which the supreme power is lodged in the hands of the people collectively, or in which the people exercise the powers of legislation. Such was the government of Athens." It isn't obvious to me how this form of government would actually function juxtaposed with a 'republic' which the same dictionary defines in this way: "A commonwealth; a state in which the exercise of the sovereign power is lodged in representatives elected by the people. In modern usage, it differs from a democracy or democratic state, in which the people exercise the powers of sovereignty in person. Yet the democracies of Greece are often called republics." This latter form of government seems a bit more stable when considering how broad a democratic government really is.
@rushikeshsisode1533
@rushikeshsisode1533 2 года назад
Donald trump is the best example why democracy need to be fixed.
@rapidrrobert4333
@rapidrrobert4333 6 лет назад
It is but ... we need more frequent voting on current events. Every second tuesday nationwide voting on current issues.
@sucram1015
@sucram1015 3 года назад
Yeah, you only vote when it is election day and that's pretty much it.
@bronzejourney5784
@bronzejourney5784 Год назад
One thing i hate about this video is, higher levels of life quality in general is credited to Democracy. While in reality, it has nothing to do with democracy. Often in most elected-governments, you see the elected-head of state tries his best to rack up military budget, by *cutting* from the said quality of life institutions, like healthcare, schools etc. It should be credited to the ever present science and development of technology. Which also should be the pulling vessel for governing entire countries. Think about it for a second, everything you see around you, everything you have, is there thanks to science and technology. I for one cant wait for the bright and enlightened future where we finally realize it was Technocracy that would deliver us to the Promised Land all this time.
@anubhavtomar1384
@anubhavtomar1384 4 года назад
When did Rob Lowe become an expert on Democracy!?
@TheTrueAdept
@TheTrueAdept Год назад
The thing is that this 'Big Think' doesn't include the technological context (the sum and application of all human knowledge) in the picture. The Internet and memetic weapons have changed the game... so, have fun.
@budibausto
@budibausto 4 года назад
A Roman would disagree! Aristocracy or the rule of the few, is preferable. The point of Democracy is to disagree, and this will always end up in stalemates. And this is really bad in times of uncertainty.
@petersmythe6462
@petersmythe6462 6 лет назад
Democracy is the best system of government, but as he said, there has never been one that was fully effective. The CLOSEST things have been socialist countries.
@harshitmadan6449
@harshitmadan6449 4 года назад
Capitalist countries are better
@zihaoding4864
@zihaoding4864 5 лет назад
It is good for a very wealthy, very educated population, which means not for developing countries.How would people expect a country with 90% of people does not have education higher the 6th grade, to vote on a country's fate? Sometimes, the majority is selfish and shortsighted.
@rrdgz5355
@rrdgz5355 6 лет назад
The problem with democracy is apathy. Once people has food, shelter, security, and a somewhat fair justice system, they lose interest in government. So, the closer a democracy gets to a perfect utopia the less concerned the voter is with who the next ruler is. Take the US for example, Hillary did not lose to Donald Trump, she lost to a lack of interest. It is true that she won the popular vote, but she and Trump, combined, only obtained about 60% of the vote. Had apathy ran, it would've won, with 40% of the vote. It's sobering to realize that about 80 million Americans chose not to cast a vote. And its laughable when anyone argue that Hillary won the popular vote, or when the Trump administration acts as it has a mandate from the American ppl to do what it does, when the majority of the American ppl couldn't care less for the president. However, other democracies have tried to get ahead of this problem by fining people who don't show up to vote, but even then apathy wins, because the voters are not willing to spend the necessary time educating themselves on the issues affecting the country. So, in the end, elections in a democracy become a beauty contest with ugly ppl, where leaders are chosen on appearances.
@shanewillbur1325
@shanewillbur1325 6 лет назад
This tells us that a Republic is an old idea. We should be electing rosters of people from a multiple choice pool of parties. The USA would be best served by a Parliament/unitary form rather than a Presidential/weird 50 state republic.
@rrdgz5355
@rrdgz5355 6 лет назад
Shane Willbur, you are right, but I see no scenario in which the states sovereignty is not violated by moving into a parliamentary democracy. Whether, the electoral college was intended to affirm the states rights and sovereignty, or not, it did, Giving us a true federal ststem, in which the states, not the public, elects the president. Perhaps, we could transform the electoral college into a quasi- parliament, with the sole purpose of overseeing the executive branch, in which the voters elect its members just as we do now, but the members of the electoral college then elect not only the president, but the cabinet, appoint enbasadors, and federal judges, and have the president answer to them the way the UK prime minister answers to the parliament, and then Congress would oversee them.
@shanewillbur1325
@shanewillbur1325 6 лет назад
or we could have states annex into larger partitions to form provinces. Rather than the trend of the past in separating territories into smaller states. I dont see the american republic modernizing itself until we aggregate into a few provinces. 4 or 5 is manageable. hell..even 10 or 20 would be. but not 50. We also have a problem with the House, and the senate. Gridlock should not be possible in a modern form of government. We need to either choose a house, or a senate...not both.
@shamtradtam3769
@shamtradtam3769 2 года назад
The thing I like about democracy is that it may not give people the government they need, but it gives them the government they deserve
@omaralkammash9225
@omaralkammash9225 2 года назад
Which is not a good thing tbh.
@omaralkammash9225
@omaralkammash9225 Год назад
@jaden nik he's right you know? Democracy sucks We should have a Meritocracy
@user-jz2mx1nl4d
@user-jz2mx1nl4d 10 месяцев назад
@@omaralkammash9225 Then you marginalise the stupid. An ai would be no better - it would pick the most effective way to run a country/world. 1. eliminate criminals/ the weak/ the unproductive 2. issue resources to those who need and deserve. is that what humanity wants?
@omaralkammash9225
@omaralkammash9225 10 месяцев назад
@@user-jz2mx1nl4d better that than be run by stupid people who in Return everyone gets Marginalised and absolute chaos occurs. And why does anyone have to be marginalised? They'd only get better and improved if they happen to be weak. And this in return would maximize the Utility for everyone. The thing most people don't get about Democracy is: when you give power and freedom of choice to the people, you give them an equal Magnitude of Responsibility. And if the people happen to be Ignorant, Stupid, or lack the necessary skills or knowledge about how a county should be run, then you'd be in big trouble my friend. But I guess Ego based freedom has a much louder sound than reason.
@bsmithhammer
@bsmithhammer 6 лет назад
Last time I checked, and contrary to what a lot of my fellow Americans seem to believe, the USA is not, and was not designed to be, a true "democracy." It is a representative republic. Knowing the different should be a prerequisite to having any opinions on the political state we find ourselves in.
@owlnyc666
@owlnyc666 2 года назад
Not according to Plato. Yes according to Solan and Clienthes. If yes,then the problem is which of the many varieties of Democracy is the THE best?🤔😉😏
@amandasuomi773
@amandasuomi773 6 лет назад
I've always wondered why we would want to be ruled by some wealthy guys, in the best case elected by the majority of the people, when the majority of people is not educated well enough to know what's best for them and for everyone else. (I don't mean people are stupid, just that everything is organized to hide the truth from them.) Therefore, even if I don't have a better solution for our "developed" countries - whose development is based on the "undevelopment" of others - I can't see democracy as the ultimate best. Though I agree that authoritarianism or anything like it are not comparable. Also, please educate yourself better on what anarchy really is, you made some serious shortcut :)
@omaralkammash9225
@omaralkammash9225 2 года назад
The reason for this because words like "Democracy" and "Freedom" are used as manipulation through society, so that oligarchs (the rich) would stay in power.
@gormhenriksen147
@gormhenriksen147 6 лет назад
Agreed, however democracy’s biggest flaw, as I believe Churchill in some way phrased it, is that it requires much effort and competence from it’s population. These requirements for a functioning democracy is now more then ever in deficit because the competence and effort are now more then ever in demand in relation to the immense amount of information that is available today. The agenda changes everyday. It’s simply to much for most to handle.
@sebastianelytron8450
@sebastianelytron8450 6 лет назад
Yes but, can you force democracy on other nations at your will?
@fss1704
@fss1704 6 лет назад
watch steffan molineaux vid on democracy
@eatcarpet
@eatcarpet 6 лет назад
You can teach them that democracy is a better way.
@Kavriel
@Kavriel 6 лет назад
I wonder. Sometimes you need to be rough for the good of someone, or the group. Could we assume the responsibilities that come with such a strong position? Probably not. You'd face incredible opposition, from within the country or countries, and outside. Not to mention a lot of recent examples of failed attempts at democraticy exist, which doesn't help public perception and support. It might be the best thing to do if you could weigh the positive and negative, but it likely wouldn't be done on a massive scale.
@TheMyeloman
@TheMyeloman 6 лет назад
No, you can’t effectively force it on other nations. They must first want it for themselves then, they must earn it. If they don’t want it, it won’t last if established. If they don’t earn it, they won’t appreciate it and won’t take any steps necessary to maintain and defend it.
@tomogburn2462
@tomogburn2462 6 лет назад
That guy is a fucking tool. Go watch Sargon or Dankula.
@cherryleung9236
@cherryleung9236 11 месяцев назад
What if we have a form of governance where the politicians sign their life away to living a life of modesty and frugality that is how the average person lives in the country and are not allowed to have a political opinion. Then, the people get to vote on what issues they want resolved, then the politicians facilitate cooperation between scholars that specialises on the issue and come up with a solution. I suggest this because the people are easily influenced, and have elected questionable leaders in the past that turned against their interests. By giving the power to decide on issues to scholars, we can ensure that only well-informed individuals that have dedicated years of their lives get a say on the issue at hand. It also ensures that no one will have too much power because a scholar usually only dedicate their lives to studying a very narrow scope of things, so they only get a say in their field of specialty. The politicians must live in frugality and have no family members to ensure their incorruptibility. Of course, this all assumes that scholars have a well-rounded understanding of the issue at hand.
@paingainmayn
@paingainmayn 5 лет назад
For a democracy to properly function there needs to be a trusted, independent media that accompanies it to offset the threat of pervaisive demagogery. The easy answers that demagogues present have to be refuted by a trusted source.
@Cyborg_Lenin
@Cyborg_Lenin 2 года назад
If communism properly functions it would be the best thing since blowjobs.
@Gsoda35
@Gsoda35 2 года назад
the answer is no because people do not always have a good number of choices and they do not often know to make a good choice. two or more parties can give you a very similar government depending on the governing system.
@lukehp7431
@lukehp7431 6 лет назад
anarchy is not violence ffs
@leeandbeahinton
@leeandbeahinton 6 лет назад
A Plutocracy (Greek: πλοῦτος, ploutos, 'wealth' + κράτος, kratos, 'rule') or plutarchy is a society that is ruled or controlled by people of great wealth or income. The first known use of the term in English dates from 1631.
@mungojelly
@mungojelly 6 лет назад
It's not anarchy when people are violently controlling one another. The violence forms a hierarchy. Your argument against anarchy is that it could go away and be replaced by hierarchy and hierarchy would be unpleasant. So your argument for why to have hierarchies is that hierarchies are awful so you need to have a hierarchy or else you would have one. Great, good job thinking.
@yasinneysari
@yasinneysari Год назад
Just national socialism 😍
@marcuscooper8324
@marcuscooper8324 Год назад
When he described tyranny it sounds an awful lot like the democracy we see today it’s a shit system the world needs better
@johnsearz3928
@johnsearz3928 6 лет назад
America is not really a democracy. It is a constitutional Federal REPUBLIC (not democracy. They are often confused for one another and you can find in the Federalist papers were the founders preferred a republic over a democracy) that follows the idea of a limited government and has hints of democracy. The Western world has taken the word democracy and stretched it quite thin from it's origins of ancient Athens. If you want to call the us a democracy you may as well change the definition of a democracy to: a system of government controlled by the few. Democracy is about the will of the people.
@theunwantedcritic
@theunwantedcritic 6 лет назад
We don't have a democracy we have a Democratic Republic operating The Chicago School capitalist economic system. Those with money or the corporations themselves fund Representatives called politicians. The politicians call themselves Republicans, Democrats, socialist, Independence or whatever else they want to call themselves. In practice they function has Republicans representing officially a certain number of Voters. In practice they represent the capital or the money that funded them. Democracy is a thin coat of paint under the system in which cash rules everything
@Lewis360
@Lewis360 6 лет назад
I totally disagree, it's relative just because you think democracy is good for you doesn't mean it's good for me, lots of people live happily under the dictatorship of god, and one can replace god with an emperor, king... etc People would happily choose safety, confort, wealth then democracy.
@sucram1018
@sucram1018 3 года назад
Unfortunately, the world or so many people have been conditioned to believe a democracy is the best system for running a country.
@MVUK358
@MVUK358 6 лет назад
Direct democracy, like in Switzerland? YES. Representative democracy? NO. In that system politicians can go on unquestioned for 4 years and "improvise" new measures without the public being able to stop them if they have a majority in Parliament. Examples: Getting us into wars for 'regime change' in M.East or approving mass immigration of poorly vetted people from dangerous countries. Direct Democracy is the only way to keep politicians accountable every step of their mandate.
@samirsam9041
@samirsam9041 6 лет назад
Yes, it is the best way because it is a reason to eliminate the violent struggle against the government and good for the people to give everyone the right to choose his or her life as he sees fit.
@omaralkammash9225
@omaralkammash9225 2 года назад
1) You don't need a "Democracy" to eliminate the violent struggle against the government, violence is a human nature and it will remain whether you have a democracy or not. 2) "Democracy is good for the people because it gives everyone the right to choose his or her life as he sees fit" Until you can prove that it is actually a good thing, then ok. also what a democracy would do is that the majority would decide the life of everyone, not "allowing everyone to choose and live as he sees fit". The best system for that would be be an "Anarchy", where everyone can do whatever he/she wants with zero intervention from anyone.
@MechanicWolf85
@MechanicWolf85 6 лет назад
It is the best we got but I bolive there could be better way to govern, then again it all depends on the landscape and the moment we are in to decide which is a better government system
@FrankVJr
@FrankVJr 6 месяцев назад
I thought America is a Constitutional Republic
@leeandbeahinton
@leeandbeahinton 6 лет назад
'Democracy' my Arse.
@ErikratKhandnalie
@ErikratKhandnalie 6 лет назад
The big issue with democracy is that it is incomplete. We have democracy (or something that looks like democracy) in our political sphere, but our economy is distinctly anti-democratic. We organize our economy more like a loose feudal system.
@ramodemmahom8905
@ramodemmahom8905 6 лет назад
It is the worst form of government. Monarchy is the best form of government. At very least, monarchy is relatively superior to democracy. “Democracy or the democratic state is the natural state for a primitive society” ~ François-René “Democracy is a soft variant of communism, and rarely in the history of ideas has it been taken for anything else.” ~ Hans-Hermann Hoppe
@92bagder
@92bagder 6 лет назад
The United States is not a democracy, we are a constitutional republic. Our founders knew of the corruption of democracies. ""If we incline too much to democracy, we shall soon shoot into a monarchy."- Hamilton "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!"- Franklin "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide.- John Adams
@DrEhrfurchtgebietend
@DrEhrfurchtgebietend 6 лет назад
You want a republic not a democracy
@lenn939
@lenn939 6 лет назад
Dr.Ehrfurchtgebietend A republic is a type of democracy, as the people get to elect representatives.
@DrEhrfurchtgebietend
@DrEhrfurchtgebietend 6 лет назад
This could be your advertisement! That is not the distinction. While a republic is like a democracy it is not the election of representatives that makes the difference. A republic is rule of law not people. It will prevent the tyranny of the masses
@FrejthKing
@FrejthKing 3 года назад
*laughs in absolute monarchy*
@Cyborg_Lenin
@Cyborg_Lenin 2 года назад
Pff, pathetic. Im a arachno-monarchist. As in a want communist spiders to rule us.
@davidtanaka5357
@davidtanaka5357 6 лет назад
Good thing we are a republic not a democracy...
@geoffreymclean2597
@geoffreymclean2597 3 года назад
I disagree that Anarchy is worse. That's an oversimplification of an unfair assumption. Every system can technically be the worst. but it depends on the landscape in which the system exists. Anarchy could work in a society where people had valued. Anarchism is not absence of governance, but of government. These are 2 separate concepts. So I think Mr Pinker is mistaken on that front.
@Southboundpachyderm
@Southboundpachyderm 6 лет назад
Dude we have been at war for 18 fucking years
@Cheeba118
@Cheeba118 3 года назад
People like this completely fail to realize that the way to have a greater and more personal stake in your government is brilliantly in the constitution since the beginning. Limiting the federal government (which s distant and does not even know your entire community exists and a vast majority of them do not even represent you) the the enumerated powers in the constitution and returning the power locally to the states and the individuals. ONLY ARROGANCE MAKES PEOPLE WANT TO TELL THE ENTRE REST OF THE WORLD WHAT TO DO. Also people need to take control over their own lives. Stop relying on government to try to solve all of your problems caused by your own personal decisions. Your choices are nobody's else's business nor responsibility. Be a freaking adult like everyone else in the world.
@omaralkammash9225
@omaralkammash9225 2 года назад
Your words are true to some extent. But the problem is that not everyone has equal opportunities, if you are born to a rich family, you are more likely to succeed in society, its not that its impossible for poor people to be successful, its just that it is more likely. The reason is simple, people make decisions based on the information they have, if they don't have the right information, they wouldn't succeed, and since your position in society has a big role in what kind of information presented to you, does anyone really have control in their life? To some extent yes, but practically no.
@fckinnonstick9919
@fckinnonstick9919 6 лет назад
Democracy is just best for a country which have their people are being United. Where as not suitable to those countries which have their people are being divided.
@omaralkammash9225
@omaralkammash9225 2 года назад
Democracy would be perfect if everyone has perfect information on governance, but sadly it is not the case (and I don't think this will ever happen)
@k.k.2749
@k.k.2749 3 года назад
No
@thstroyur
@thstroyur 6 лет назад
The best so far is not necessarily the best; if you're looking for your dream system of government (or whatever it's called), you're looking for ethocracy: one does not do things based on quantity, like the uneducated vote of someone who is not qualified to actually opinion on the topic, but on quality: do whatever, as long as human rights are respected always for everyone
@petersmythe6462
@petersmythe6462 6 лет назад
The problem is this is exactly what happened. First it was the slave economy of the south who despotically ruled, then it was the gilded age industrialists and the old slave owners re-asserting their fascistic and anti-democratic control and they became despots, and then the new neoliberal version of the same monopoly capitalism as the gilded age has taken its toll over the past 50 years.
@arbs3ry
@arbs3ry 6 лет назад
I tell you what, most underdeveloped countries are sort of democracy, are they happy now, hunger disease poor infrastructures... , for many democracy not the first priority, making a decent living standard is. Unless you neglect these countries and only put your focus on developed countries.
@trorisk
@trorisk 3 года назад
It has been known since antiquity that election is not democracy (the government of the people). It's at best the election of an aristocracy (the government of the best). You have to read the thinkers of political philosophy, Aristotle, Plato, Rousseau, Montesquieu an so on. What you've call "representative democracy" by construction (the election) is not a democracy.
@truhhhhhhhokIII3
@truhhhhhhhokIII3 6 лет назад
But can we do democracy but with a say billion dollar cap? Because those 1000 that own 50%of the entire money supply is skewing economics. No one needs to have that much money
@khalidsafir
@khalidsafir 6 лет назад
After stating that democracies aren't perfect, he lists why they are good, beginning with 1:54 "democracies seldom go to war with each other..." guess he missed WW1, WW2.... and are demoracies allowed to start fights to steel oil and other resources, is that ok? Don't take anything this guy says as fact. I'm not for or against democracies. I was hoping for a more balanced talk but I forget, Big Think often has talks with people how have an axe to grind. Steven says democracies lead to happier people? Statistically, the champions of democracy, like the US and UK have high levels of depression. There are non democracies - different to 'evil' dictatorships - like Qatar or Morrocco - that people love living in or are favourite holiday desitinations. Of course, there's lots of good things about democratic countries, just trying to give the other side of the argument, which I was hoping this talk would have.
@ThatTimeTheThingHappened
@ThatTimeTheThingHappened 6 лет назад
Democracy has one major problem - the winning vote is for the majority. The minority always lose and will become underprivleged. The US has a pseudo democracy, but mostly a democractically elected republic with a heavy focus on checks and balances.
@identityfor
@identityfor 6 лет назад
Anarchism means no leaders, not, no government
@Dominik-ys6nu
@Dominik-ys6nu 6 лет назад
I disagree with you there wasonceme S.. As far as I understand, Anarchism means exactly no government/state/reign/rulership.... no matter what form. Because these kind of systems violate the non-aggression principle by giving a collective (resp. representatives of a collective) more power and rights then individuals. There would be "leaders" tho. People you listen and look up to, because they have proven to be experts in their sphere (be it science, arts, sports, economics,...). I would really like to hear objections, please respond :)
@drunkenrampage1588
@drunkenrampage1588 6 лет назад
No.
@Alex-fu3mi
@Alex-fu3mi 26 дней назад
Steven Pinker is a sclerotic political thinker. Shallow, misinformed, the preferred speaker of the ruling classes.
@scottmialltablet
@scottmialltablet 6 лет назад
It's the best form of gov't that we've developed so far. Particularly for very large (10,000+) groups of people.
@Gsoda35
@Gsoda35 2 года назад
if refering to the united states then there might be better political systems. they got serious issues.
Далее
Peter Thiel on “The Straussian Moment”
47:26
Просмотров 976 тыс.
Forms of Government | World101
5:21
Просмотров 545 тыс.
Why Democracy Leads to Tyranny
17:15
Просмотров 248 тыс.
5 Ways To Stop Fascism with Paul Mason
17:59
Просмотров 19 тыс.
The New Feudalism
20:42
Просмотров 847 тыс.