Can Democracy work in a marriage/household?

[Revert2001]

shhh I thought it was a secret

Thanks for the sense of humour brother.

Something I have noticed lacking in the ummah.

[تفويض]

Thanks for the sense of humour brother.

Something I have noticed lacking in the ummah.

True story sometimes. Brothers are too serious to crack a funny sometimes. I don't because my jokes aren't funny, but I do have a bash....like now...

[Abu Zakir]

marriage and government are different

Not really, government can be applied at any scale, individual, house, village, city, nation continent etc.
The point is at some point you get one person who decides...if this does not happen a decision will never be made...this meand democracies at some point are ruled by one person who decides. Tony Blair took Britain to war by himself, there was not vote, the majority of people did want want the invasion of Iraq.

[Revert2001]

Not really, government can be applied at any scale, individual, house, village, city, nation continent etc.
The point is at some point you get one person who decides...if this does not happen a decision will never be made...this meand democracies at some point are ruled by one person who decides. Tony Blair took Britain to war by himself, there was not vote, the majority of people did want want the invasion of Iraq.

Tony Blair had nothing to do with the U.S. wanting to invade Iraq.

Funny that.........

[vagabond]

If everyone in the household are equal can they democratically organize themselves without breaking the marriage, creating endless conflict or destroying their lives?

How can a country be run like this?

A household and a country are very different. Countries have a judicial system, and organizations to enforce the rules. There are consequences in other words. It's not necessary that there be an equivalent hierarchy and authority within the household.

Democracy can work (depending on your criteria for 'work') for governing a country, there are several examples out there in the world.

I would suggest not to waste time arguing against democracy on these grounds. There are potentially much stronger grounds on which to criticize modern implementations of democracy. Additionally, arguing against such a broad concept as 'democracy' sounds naive and too simplistic. Be more specific, and perhaps it will be more a more interesting discussion.

[Abu Zakir]

[QUOTE=vagabond;804142]

Democracy can work (depending on your criteria for 'work') for governing a country, there are several examples out there in the world.

Democracy is supposed to be good because it allows everyone a say in making rules, and supposedly no one person has the power to impose their own will on everyone else.

I would suggest not to waste time arguing against democracy on these grounds. There are potentially much stronger grounds on which to criticize modern implementations of democracy. Additionally, arguing against such a broad concept as 'democracy' sounds naive and too simplistic. Be more specific, and perhaps it will be more a more interesting discussion.

Ok, it is a very broad concept I agree. But if we actually look at a household or a nation-state if they are organized on the basis of democracy (everyone votes and the majority vote wins) we find that it is unworkable. If a family wants to decide something on the basis of a vote there will be chaos...similarly a nation would be in chaos...so in reality both have a leader who decides...negating the concept of democracy. In other words there is an illusion in democracy that we all decide the rules...in the end there is always one man or one woman who makes the rules and they can take the nation to war single handedly. These one man/woman are supported by the illusion of democracy and can alter the way that the nation is run...they can be working to help particular factions within the nation and can easily be subverted (meaning bankers or money power can gain control of the nations government easily). And whenever a new person is elected into power they are given this control too, so money power can place their people in the driving seat and gain control of the whole country while giving the illusion that it is a 'democracy'.

[warea]

For sure though marriage does not work based on the person with the biggest ak47 making the decisions like a know it all dictator.

[Abu Zakir]

For sure though marriage does not work based on the person with the biggest ak47 making the decisions like a know it all dictator.

...in the end there is always one man or one woman who makes the rules and they can take the nation to war single handedly. These one man/woman are supported by the illusion of democracy and can alter the way that the nation is run...they can be working to help particular factions within the nation and can easily be subverted (meaning bankers or money power can gain control of the nations government easily). And whenever a new person is elected into power they are given this control too, so money power can place their people in the driving seat and gain control of the whole country while giving the illusion that it is a 'democracy'.

[Abu Zakir]

The issue is discussed; then the husband makes the final decision.

Even in the west; any man who let's his wife run the marriage is referred to as a "wimp" and would never get any respect from his friends, family, or co-workers,

This is not true in Britain...women have been put forward as equal to men, they after all contribute towards the family income and work so why should they listen to men?

[vagabond]

Democracy is supposed to be good because it allows everyone a say in making rules, and supposedly no one person has the power to impose their own will on everyone else.

Too general. A democracy may allow exactly what you have written above, but not necessarily. Democracy allows the public to have a direct or indirect say in the governing of the state. To what degree, and in what form ... depends on how it is implemented.

Ok, it is a very broad concept I agree. But if we actually look at a household or a nation-state if they are organized on the basis of democracy (everyone votes and the majority vote wins) we find that it is unworkable.If a family wants to decide something on the basis of a vote there will be chaos...similarly a nation would be in chaos...so in reality both have a leader who decides...negating the concept of democracy. In other words there is an illusion in democracy that we all decide the rules...in the end there is always one man or one woman who makes the rules and they can take the nation to war single handedly. These one man/woman are supported by the illusion of democracy and can alter the way that the nation is run...they can be working to help particular factions within the nation and can easily be subverted (meaning bankers or money power can gain control of the nations government easily). And whenever a new person is elected into power they are given this control too, so money power can place their people in the driving seat and gain control of the whole country while giving the illusion that it is a 'democracy'.

Again, you're making the mistake of assuming a simplistic Utopian 'democracy' which a child designed. There is a concept of certain immutable principles and laws in a country, which are not subject to mere majority vote. For example, the constitution. In america, you need a 2/3 majority to amend the constitution. That 2/3 number isn't set it stone for all democracies. You can make it 80% or 100% .. whatever. And democracy doesn't mean that every single action of the state is made by the public voting on every issue. You have elected representatives which make these decision.

I'm not arguing in favor of democracy, not in the slightest. However, your arguments are much too simplistic .. and at times not relevant.

in the end there is always one man or one woman who makes the rules and they can take the nation to war single handedly. These one man/woman are supported by the illusion of democracy and can alter the way that the nation is run...

Yes, it is possible that the people who are voted into office are deep undercover foreign assets (or as pawlak and yourself would say: agents of the satanic masonic bankers who rule the world and have absolute control over everythingggg). What water-tight plan do you have for governance that would protect against such a thing?