A recent controversial argument has been, “Is direct democracy the best functioning and most ethical form of Government?” No, direct democracy cannot function as well as a representative democracy due to the average intelligence and engagement of people. Direct democracy also has three major ethical flaws. Direct democracy can ignore the views of minorities whether racial or ideological. It can encourage social unrest through a mob/herd mentality. Also, public opinion can shift against human rights in a direct democracy. If you can vote on anything, then human rights can be ignored. Crystal Lombardo (chief editor of TheNextGalaxy.com) writes, “While in theory, letting everyone have a say is a great thing, in reality it may not be so beneficial. …show more content…
Dr. Wendy James best described mob/herd mentality by saying: “One dog may bark at you but it is more likely that a pack will attack you. We are not exempt from that behavior because we are human and not canine. As evidenced by dogs operating in a pack environment, human society is based on group dynamics. As humans, we have instinctual responses that are exacerbated by group influences. What we might not do as individuals we may do as part of a group. People may lose control of their usual inhibitions, as their mentality becomes that of the group.” During the French Revolution there were two “political parties”, the Girondins and the Jacobins, who were fundamentally different in what they wanted from the revolution. The Girondins generally were more in favor of a kind of constitutional monarchy while the Jacobins wanted a new kind of direct democracy. A Jacobin journalist named Jean-Paul-Marat was arrested in Paris for attacking some Girondins. This turned many more people to Jean-Paul-Marat and the Jacobins. Jean-Paul-Marat was acquitted of the charges. An uproar proceeded this where he was carried by swarms of people through the streets. If that was the only way people behaved in groups, then mob mentality may not be a problem or even real, but unfortunately it is not. Later that year the King of France was put on trial for treason, the Girondins actively argued against …show more content…
Public opinion should never be allowed to overrule Human Rights. Kenneth Roth (The executive director of the Human Rights Watch.) writes that “If most people always wanted to do the right thing, democracies would not need to be concerned about human rights. But because you can’t trust unfettered majority rule, the purpose of human rights is, at least in part, to be a check on majority overreach.” This has no greater modern example in the US than Eugenics. Eugenics in America were the compulsory sterilization laws adopted by over 30 states which led to more than 60,000 sterilizations. The people that were subject to the sterilizations were the mentally disabled or in some cases criminals and socially disadvantaged people. In Europe as well the National Socialist compulsory sterilization program was responsible for about 350,000 sterilizations in 1934-1945. The European Sterilizations in the words of University of Vermont professor of Sociology Lutz Kaelber were “...a stepping stone to the Holocaust.” In the US the two categories for sterilization were mental illness and mental deficiency. To clarify, mental deficiency could be interpreted to mean anyone from a criminal, to someone who was poor, or a racial minority. The highest number of American sterilizations occurred in California. 20,108 people were sterilized in California before 1964 (one third of all US sterilizations). In
According to some accounts, the eugenics movement died out in the 1930s. However, the forty two percent of Native American women who were sterilized under questionable circumstances by 1982, stand as testament that eugenics was alive and kicking during the seventies (Define 1997). Sparked by concern about overpopulation in the 1960s, eugenics was legally sanctioned under the Nixon administration (Johansen 1998). This sanctioning was given life in a campaign to sterilize the impoverished. For instance, between 1969 and 1974, the budget for family planning increased from $51 million to more than $250 million (Johansen 1998). This money helped to sterilize between 192,000 and 548,000 women each year between 1970 and 1977 compared to an average of 63,000 a year between 1907 and 1964, a period that included the pinnacle of the eugenics movement (Johansen 1998).
The United States has also used sterilization on individuals , in the case mentioned above this also was used on the native Americans Without their consent , and also on the mentally incapable. In all cases of forced sterilization in regards of the right or wrong of it is wrong , anything that is forced is considered non consensual. just like any other item that could be done to a person without the individual 's consent it is against the law on almost all cases. As mentioned before the United States has acted in many not necessarily constitutional ways in regards to reproductive rights , another occurrence in which the United States violated the reproductive rights of many is during the time frame which the United States forces native americans onto reservations and when the native american women went to give birth at the birth clinic the medical staff would assist in the birth then after the child had been born they would unconsensually sterilized the Native American women this activity allowed the united states government to control the amount of future reproductions that could take place in given native american
Republicanism and direct democracy, these are two ways that a people can be governed. There is a major difference between these two systems. In a republican system the government represents the people. The representatives are chosen by popular vote and are given the power to make decisions on behalf of the people. The people do not get to voice their own opinions, the best they can do is vote for their representative and hope he wins. This can also be referred to as indirect democracy. Direct democracy which was exemplified in the ancient Athenian city-state, or the New England town meeting in modern times, is a government based solely on the people. The governmental decisions are passed only if the majority of the people vote for it. "People", that is the key word, the people themselves are included in making political decisions.
The eugenics movement started in the early 1900s and was adopted by doctors and the general public during the 1920s. The movement aimed to create a better society through the monitoring of genetic traits through selective heredity. Over time, eugenics took on two different views. Supporters of positive eugenics believed in promoting childbearing by a class who was “genetically superior.” On the contrary, proponents of negative eugenics tried to monitor society’s flaws through the sterilization of the “inferior.”
Direct Democracy vs Representative Democracy The term Democracy is derived from two Greek words, demos, meaning people, and kratos, meaning rule. These two words form the word democracy which means rule by the people. Aristotle, and other ancient Greek political philosophers, used the phrase, `the governors are to be the governed', or as we have come to know it, `rule and be ruled in turn'. The two major types of democracy are Representative Democracy and Direct
Mob or pack mentality can be defined as the inclination to loose one’s self including morals and values when placed in a large group of people that corroborate and praise actions that reflect their own. Mob mentality is essentially blurring the lines between a person’s individuality and the opinions and actions of a group of people that have formed a “pack”. This can also be called deindividuation.
"Eugenics: Did the Eugenics Movement Benefit the United States?" History in Dispute. Ed. Robert J. Allison. Vol. 3: American Social and Political Movements, 1900-1945: Pursuit of Progress. Detroit: St. James Press, 2000. 17-23. Canada In Context. Web. 19 Feb. 2014.
Mob mentality or herd mentality is the change of behaviors of a person by the others when they are in a large group. Reasons that lead to this are like pressure from friends, being fit with everyone, or simply they just want to be accepted. There are some highlighted ideas that come to our minds when we talk about mob mentality. People usually will behave in the same ways as others or even follow each other without thinking. Sometimes they think to join the group to feel belonging. Moreover, people tend to be more anonymous than usual, and they are more chaotic and violent when they are in a group. Last but not least, there is confusion, but at least trying to know what is happening, people just go in the same direction as their peers.
Starting in the mid-1960s, some erosion of the anti-abortion laws began to take place. But these efforts have not been supported by many of the more vocal groups who are trying to do something about excess population growth; to them, compulsory birth control and compulsory sterilization are apparently more palatable than voluntary abortion.
On October 19, 1927, a “feebleminded,” young woman was robbed. This young woman’s name is Carrie Buck and her ability to conceive children was taken from her without her consent or knowledge. This decision would not only impact those already affected by unauthorized sterilization, but for those whom would later be sterilized. The Supreme Court’s ruled the sterilization of Carrie Buck to be constitutional on the grounds of it being better for society, better for the individual, and eugenic evidence.
... result of a direct democracy, complications like getting every citizen to vote on every single issue, something close to impossible with modern populations that grow like grass in springtime. These changes have caused democracy to become intertwined with other forms of government, and while they have caused a deviation from pure democracy, they have allowed countless nations to function efficiently while maintaining the basic pillar of democracy: that ultimate authority and power is derived from the citizens.
When one contemplates the concept of eugenics, few think of modern contraception and abortion when in reality they are one in the same. The American Eugenics Society, founded in 1923, proudly proclaimed that men with incurable “conditions” should be sterilized. However these conditions were often none that could be helped, such as, one’s intelligence, race, and social class (Schweikart and Allen 529-532). The purpose of the society was to create the perfect class of men; elite in all ways. Likewise, Margaret Sanger’s feminist, contraceptive movement was not originally founded with this purpose. It was marketed as a way to control the population and be merciful to those yet to be born, again determined also by race and intelligence. The similarities in purpose actually brought the two organizations together to form a “liberating movement” to “aid women” known today as Planned Parenthood (Schweikart and Allen 529-532). The name may sound harmless, but the movement hid a darker purpose, to wean out the lower and less educated in order to create a perfect class.
Throughout history different types of instrumental regimes have been in tact so civilizations remained structured and cohesive. As humanity advanced, governments obligingly followed. Although there have been hiccups from the ancient times to modern day, one type of government, democracy, has proven to be the most effective and adaptive. As quoted by Winston Churchill, democracy is the best form of government that has existed. This is true because the heart of democracy is reliant, dependent, and thrives on the populaces desires; which gives them the ability for maintaining the right to choose, over time it adjusts and fixes itself to engulf the prominent troubling issues, and people have the right of electing the person they deem appropriate and can denounce them once they no longer appease them. In this paper, the benefits of democracy are outlined, compared to autocratic communism, and finally the flaws of democracy are illustrated.
Direct democracy means forms of direct participation of citizens in democratic decision making in contrast to indirect or representative democracy, based on the sovereignty of the people. This can happen in the form of an assembly democracy or by initiative and referendum with ballot voting, with direct voting on issues instead of for candidates or parties. Sometimes the term is also used for electing representatives in a direct vote as opposed to indirect elections (by voting for an electing body, electoral college, etc.), as well as for recalling elected officeholders. Direct democracy may be understood as a full-scale system of political institutions, but in modern times, it means most often specific decision-making institutions in the broader
Democracy has come to mean a principle under whose flag has most of the developed countries aced in their race for Imperialism. It has gone beyond all previous governing systems and has made room for progress and development. By offering free and fair elections, democracy has redefined human dignity and patriotism. It has also helped to improve decision-making among the citizens, and brought down the crime level. Democracy is for sure the most fitting among the other types of government, and needs to be implemented fully for effective functioning of a state.