Who is going to go out and have their say this upcoming election term?
Do you feel it is a very important role in our society and matter very much or do you think it is meaningless. It doesn't matter that much?
Printable View
Who is going to go out and have their say this upcoming election term?
Do you feel it is a very important role in our society and matter very much or do you think it is meaningless. It doesn't matter that much?
Don't vote! It only encourages the bastards!
Do we agree on anything? :?Quote:
Originally Posted by The
:content: Howie, it's a joke. :PQuote:
Originally Posted by Howetzer
:oops: What?¿ ~ Has this Extended discussion Forum has put me on the defensive. :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by The
I’m not old enough to vote… and my mom, dad, and sibling aren’t even registered. I think I’ll vote when I get older. I’ll get a sticker :bigteeth:, oh and I guess I would be a part of an important process of picking our nations leaders.
Anyway speaking of voting I’m not too sure but there’s been some thoughts about making voting kind of a lottery to try and get more people to vote. Like a random voter would get a lot of money.
I think that’s a stupid idea. I wouldn’t want the president to be elected by people who are only voting to try and win money. It would kind of be like school elections for class president. At one school you had to go and vote for who you want doing lunch, at the other school they made it easy and just handed out papers to vote on to all the classes. If voting is just handed to people (or it be like a lottery) then yes people are more likely to vote, but not really care who or what they are voting for.
I voted. Once more, was voting AGAINST people instead of for them. There were just too many I didn't want to see get into office.
I voted. I always vote in general elections -- not always in the others.
That was a proposition on the ballot here in Arizona. I agree, dumb idea. I don't want every moron voting -- just people who really care and are informed.Quote:
Originally Posted by justme
Oh dear god you get stickers... We just get a disturbing old man.
Anyway, not that I could have voted, but I'm pleased with the results. America's international esteem seems to have just gone up a few notches.
Quote:
Originally Posted by D
aaahhh. I voted by absentee ballot this year so I did not receive a sticker. :morecrying:
I had been collecting them over the years on my gun safe. (spare he red neck jokes)
The Democrats took The House and the Senate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by D
If people do not want to vote then why would you even want their vote? That is stupid.
It would be hard to consider then very valid votes.
It is always the Democrats that get all Hell bent on convincing as many people as possible to vote. That is because the uninformed people are usually going to vote for Democrats. On the surface, the ideas of the Democrats seem to make sense. It takes analysis to see through the surface illusions, and the uninformed are not going to do that. They will just say, "Hey, the Democrats are against poverty. They pass laws against racism too. And they think guns are bad. Hmmmm.... Democrats will raise taxes and pay to fix everything. Gosh, that's a real good idear. They know how to get the government to solve every problem. I'll vote for them." It takes extra thought to understand the importance of low taxes in a capitalist system, how welfare gone mad encourages poverty, the futility of programs that ignore the necessity of competition, the disproportionate effect of gun bans on criminals and non-criminals, and the other counterproductive attributes of big government.Quote:
Originally Posted by Howetzer
Uhhhh... I can't quite place it, but Burns, you look a little eerie in that photo.
Anyway, I said this before but it got deleted cos of our silly hosts: I don't vote, out of prinicple.
:oops: It was a rainy, nasty day so my hair looks retarded.Quote:
Originally Posted by The
No, it's not that. It's the way you've got this absurdly large smile, but... I dunno. There's like... a little hint of menace in the eyes... like "If you don't vote, I'LL HUNT YOU DOWN AND KILL YOU so let's go vote and have chocolate." kinda thing....Quote:
Originally Posted by Burns
You should trademark that slogan! :PQuote:
Originally Posted by The
Hell no! I'm against voting.
...
Killing people too, I suppose.
Then how are the people supposed to run things? Do you support some type of totalitarianism? What kind of government do you believe in?Quote:
Originally Posted by The
:doh: ahhhhhh! I just realized that the POLL is back! I can't get rid of it.
Why not vote? Because then you can just pitch a bitch and blame it on others. Then say there is nothing I can do anyway. :roll:
I don't "believe" in any form of government in the objective sense. The same as I don't believe in objective morality.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal
I think the current trend in modern political thought to regard democracy as an objectively superior form of government, and desirable, is nonsensical if one does not accept objectivity in an ideological or moral sense.
I don't "believe" in democracy. I support what works. With our current level of technology, democracy doesn't exist, let alone work. Direct democracy, that is. Representative democracy isn't democracy, in my opinion. Democracy doesn't work very well at all.
So what form of government DO I support? Ehhh, tricky question. Depends on what works. And what works differs from country to country, and culture to culture.
But you are against voting. So what are you not against? If you don't want the people to have votes, then you support totalitarian government, it seems. Are you okay with totalitarian governments in some places? Which places? In places where you don't think totalitarianism works, what does, without voting? It seems that for a government to not be totalitarian, the people have to have the ultimate authority. How can they have that without votes?Quote:
Originally Posted by The
The Blue Meanie,
Since this seems to come up in a lot of the discussion, I think I need something clarified, if you will.
Objective reasoning.
I can't seem to get my head around the true nature of this.
Maybe if need be we can even split this great POLL and discuss it in greater detail
By Objectivism, do you mean a type of metaphysics?
" philosophical stance that holds that reality is not mind dependent."
I guess what I am asking is, where does the underlying basis for an Objective stance rooted? As Objective in itself, meaning what I believe to be to have a goal, no? Or a agenda and purpose.
Without this, does this mean that life will unfold as it will.... regardless of decision?
Maybe I am way off. But I think this may give better understanding to some of the debates such as morals and such.
I'm not "against" insofar as it's part of a system of government which I do not support because it doesn't work: elected representative government.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal
The view that anything not deomcratic must therefopre be totalitarian is a much misguided preconception. Quite prevalent in western society, as shown by your post. Try not to presuppose my views.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal
This is something that I've tried to express time and time again. Whether I am "okay" with a type of government in a different culture is irrelevant. What matters is whether it works. And, before you ask me to define "works" - yes, that is a tricky question which is again dependant on cultural and other factors.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal
But the guts of what you're asking is where do I think totalitarian governments might "work". I would tend to say smaller political societies, with less people and a need for a single governing person - purely for the sake of efficiency. For larger societies, totalitarian government and absolute power vested in a single figure head MAY not be a suitable system of government. And in any case, the larger the country, the more impossible totalitarianism becomes. The larger the country, the more work there is. Take Nazi Germany for example - you should look up the "Weak Dictator" thesis with regards to Hitler. Wikipedia it, it SHOULD be on there - that should give a basic overview.
Not true. Like I said above, this is not a simple dichotomy. We have two extremes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal
Totalitarianism (total power vested in the government) vs Total power vested in the people.
There are MANY shades of grey and variations in between the two extremes. Surely you can see this? In any case, the only way for the people to have absolute authority would be some sort of collective telepathic issue-by-issue decision making, as in the Peter F. Hamilton "Night's Dawn" Trilogy of books. Very good, I think you'd like it. Some good political theory in there, even if it IS sci-fii.
(MODS!!!! CAN WE PLEASE unban 's c i f i'?! It's REALLY annoying!)
Representative, "democratically" elected government is not total power vested in the people. In fact, it could be argues that this form of government is actually closer to totalitarianism than it is to having total power vested in the people. This is a debate for another time though, methinks.
When I speak of "objectivism", in application to "objective morality" or an "objectively superior" idea or political theory, I am expressing the idea (and usually objecting against it) that certain principles of morality or political theory are "objectively" better. I.e, the idea that they're better or right, just because they ARE.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal
Taking the example of democracy as an objective principle: there is a tendency in western political thought to see representative 'democracy' as somehow "inherantly" superior.
Does that make it more clear what I mean when I use the word "objective"?
QUOTE(Howetzer @ Nov 12 2006, 01:56 AM) *
Since this seems to come up in a lot of the discussion, I think I need something clarified, if you will.
Objective reasoning.
I can't seem to get my head around the true nature of this.
Maybe if need be we can even split this great POLL and discuss it in greater detail
By Objectivism, do you mean a type of metaphysics?
" philosophical stance that holds that reality is not mind dependent."
I guess what I am asking is, where does the underlying basis for an Objective stance rooted? As Objective in itself, meaning what I believe to be to have a goal, no? Or a agenda and purpose.
Without this, does this mean that life will unfold as it will.... regardless of decision?
Maybe I am way off. But I think this may give better understanding to some of the debates such as morals and such.[/quote]
Well I guess there is the obvious difference between objective views and objective goals.Quote:
Originally Posted by The
I guess I don't see how it is a belief. Corrosion of conformity. Is it just bucking a popular system?
Blue Meanie, you danced all around my major question, but never quite hit it. I thought my post very clearly indicated what I am trying to understand. I will ask it in one sentence this time instead of several...
How can the people have voices without votes?
I don't see how that is possible, so it seems that any kind of government where people don't would be totalitarianism. If you disagree, please explain how it is possible to have a government that is not completely totalitarian where the people don't vote. Of course there can be votes and totalitarianism, as in the case of the Hussein regime, where Hussein got 100% of the votes (Hmmmmm...), but you can't have an absence of totalitarianism without votes. How can the people have voices without votes?
I know you recanted on your point that you don't believe in voting, so if you do believe in voting in non-demoratic systems, then tell me. My question in the above paragraph is there in case you think it is possible to have non-voting without totalitiarianism. I don't see how it is possible. Do you?
And my subordinate question:
What kind of government(s) do you believe in? If your philosphy on that is too culture specific, then pick an area and answer it in regard to that area, or culture or country or whatever. I am trying to get at least some spec of an incling about what kind of government or governments you think have any kind of legitimacy, but you have dodged the very simple question the past six times I have asked it. Please don't give me this "irrelevant" stuff. I am just asking you for your answer, not cross-examining you in a murder trial or suggesting that your answer has some major significance or that the rest of the world wants to know what you think. You are not on trial or on a witness stand. You are just being asked a question on a discussion board by somebody you have told repeatedly that democracy "doesn't work". What kind of government(s) do you not blanketly say don't work?
While we're at it, what kind of government do you most want Iraq to end up having? I don't care how relevant or irrelevant the question is. I am curious. What kind of government do you most favor for the future of Iraq?
Easy. There's a huge variety of ways. Influence, civil disobediance, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal
A 'vote' does not give the people a direct voice in any decision making. It is at best an inderect and ineffective tool. And in a system where the "representative" government gets to define the basis on which it is elected, and the procedures by which votes "count", and then go on to totally ignore the promises made to the voter... this is a direct defiance of the Doctrine of the Mandate.
"Democratically" elected representative government is NOT democracy. Not even close to.
Easy. For instance, take a monarchy in which a much hated leader is rebelled against, captured and executed. Or a small tribal society in which the society is governed by "meetings". There's a plethora of different ways to have non-totalitarian government that don't require a 'vote'. Indeed, there are plenty of different types of governmental systems which include 'votes', but the votes may differ in nature and importance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal
I suggest you go look up "Totalitarian(ism)" in the dictionary. You seem to have an absurdly simple definition of "totalitarianism". It's not a term that can bandied about to apply to any system without votes - this is a simplistic and limited viewpoint.
Again, I do not "believe" in any form of government, in the same way that I do not believe in objective morality. There is a difference between "believe", "support", and "acknowledge as suitable". I do not believe in, or support, ANY form of government.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal
However, I do acknowledge as appropriate some forms of government for some areas. For instance, in some parts of tribal africa, especially in smaller societies, a tribal/council/king type system is often appropriate.
By asking me "what type of government to you believe in or support" you presuppose that I DO believe in or support a type of government. I don't, so the question is inappropriate. A government is either works and is suitable for a society, or it doesn't, or somewhere in between. I do not support or believe in any one form of government.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal
If you've failed to comprehend the reasons for which the question is invalid as it applies to my thinking, then that is your problem, not mine. In effect, what you're asking is like saying:Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal
"Did you beat your wife today or did you do it yesterday instead" and then complaining when I say I don't beat my wife. Do you see what I'm saying here?
I don't. Any. I do not favour any one system of government. I hiope that Iraq (without US "guidance") will develop for itself, over time and likely through sporadic conflict, a system of government which works for them. I do not know what that system is, but, whatever it is, the present "system" is laughably ineffective, weak, and doomed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal
EDIT: Gah! Why aren't quotes working?!
That does not answer much. I am talking about ways to run a government. If the leader gets killed, of course the people have a single moment in history where they have a voice. I think you know I am talking about FORMS of government. You can't run a government simply by killing the leader. That makes no decisions, except to have a dead leader. What would that be called? A homicidarchy? I am talking about how the people can actually have ongoing control, like in the democratic republic I live in. I am also not talking about tribes that have meetings. I am talking about national governments, like in the U.S., New Zealand, France, Canada, etc. We have been talking about countries this whole time, and you have said that "democracy doesn't work". And all you can give me about what does work in any situation are totalitarianism in small countries and tribes having meetings. So so far, the only kind of effective national government you have said works in any situation is totalitarianism.Quote:
Originally Posted by The
I didn't define it that way. I said that I don't see how a system of government (We have been talking about countries, not bands of a few families living together in the mud huts in the woods.) can exist in such a way that the people have a voice (not a one time voice by killing the leader) without voting. I never once asserted that it is impossible. I politely used terms like "it seems" and asked questions, as opposed to asserting what I believe to be facts. You have been simplistically and rudely suggesting that my questions were assertions. They were not. They were questions, and your answers have been very inadequate. I suggest you try harder to clear this up. How can a SYSTEM (not moment) of government be ultimately controlled by the people, as in a representative democracy, when the people don't vote? (Notice THIS TIME that that is a question, not an assertion. Try giving an actual answer this time.)Quote:
Originally Posted by The
So you are an anarchist? Do you really have no answer for this beyond tribes and small totalitarian regimes? You said you believe in (as in "acknowledge as suitable") the systems of tribe meetings for tribes and totalitarianism in some small countries. What else? Is that the best you can give here?Quote:
Originally Posted by The
Jesus Christ, back to the damn tribes again. I am talking about countries. Perhaps try talking along the lines of the countries that are represented on this web site. What would be the most suitable government for Russia, for example? Maybe that will get you on track.Quote:
Originally Posted by The
You are dodging like a politician. You have expressed absolutely extreme opinion about what kind of government does not work. What does? Pick a country or type of national culture and tell me about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by The
Every time I drill somebody with a question they dodge like the plague because they know they don't have an answer they are willing to admit to having, they come at me with the wife beater analogy. My question is not analogous to it. The wife beater question implies that there is wife beating when there might not even be a marriage. You have stated types of government that you "acknowledge as suitable" and have royally gone off about how "democracy doesn't work". Either you are against government period outside of tribe meetings and totalitarian governments in certain small countries, or you are refusing to spit out what you "acknowledge as suitable" in the other instances. And by the way, a person who has never beaten his wife would correctly answer, "No," to the wife beater question. Then perhaps he could explain his answer, but, "No," is still correct even if he doesn't. Even the wife beater question is not unanswerable. So what is your answer to my question? And feel free to explain it. Are you against all types of governments other than tribal meetings and totalitarian governments in some small countries? Is that what is going on here?Quote:
Originally Posted by The
Can you at least say that you want a government where the people have ultimate control, one where they can vote officials in and out? Or should they have some sort of homicidarchy? Should they divide up into a hundred thousand tribes and have meetings? What would you "acknowledge as suitable" in terms of their having a voice and, as you said you want them to be able to do, choose their own direction? They sure as Hell did not have that under the Hussein regime. No totalitarian system would allow that. Give a general description of what WOULD work in terms of their being able to choose their own direction.Quote:
Originally Posted by The
How is this "one time voice" significantly different from "representative" government, a system you seem to be advocating, in which the actual "voice" of the people is only given once every four years and has little to no effect on the actual policies or decisions made by the elected government?Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal
If you think that in your system, the people have a voice, you're kidding yourself.
Already have. The tribal example. the reason I chose it was because it is simple, and relatively self-apparent. The reason I've avoided using more complex examples, you'll find below.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal
No. The reason I'm not answering is because it's a stupid question. I've already explained why above. I'm not dodging anything, I'm flat-out TELLING you I'm not going to answer a question such as "what governmental system to you believe in or support", because it presupposes a political mentality which I do not have.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal
No.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal
My point, my CRUCIAL POINT that you seem to be missing, is that it is not for me, or you, or America, to decide what form of government is apporpriate for a country in political flux. This is something America seems not to be able to grasp. Through a long and sometimes bloody process of political development, a culture or coutnry should be left alone to develop its own political culture and governmental system.
It is not up to ME, or YOU, or AMERICA to decide what form of government we "believe in", "support", or "is appropriate" for that country, and it's CERTAINLY not our business to decide a nation's future. That should be left for the nation in question.
This is so absurd. I am not asking for you to DECIDE anything for a country. You have gone off about what you are against, and all you have said, after repeated questions, that you are FOR or at least "acknowledge as suitable" is fucking tribe meetings and small totalitarian regimes. You show so much opinion and then turn around and act like you don't have one at all. You are like a junior high school principal who goes off on a student for fighting when the student saw no other alternative and then says, "I have no opinion about what you SHOULD have done." And you are just flat out lying when you say that my follow up question about what type of government you are not against is a "stupid question". We both know damn well that you don't think that.
Let's look at the record. So far, this is your list of the people's means of having control of their government...
1. Kill the leader
2. Have a tribe meeting
Anything else?
Obviously you aren't ready to expose any real depths of what kind of government you think DOES work, so as of now I will quit asking you. That is... until the next time you go off about what kind of national government system enrages you because you think it DOES NOT work.
You also overlooked the fact that the people of my country have the power to pull people out of office. Did you really not know that? How do you think Arnold became California Governor? It seems like you would have known about it, considering your extreme interest in my country. We even have initiatives, which are elections on specific issues, such as the legalization of medical marijuana in a state. Futhermore, we have the power to put major pressure on political parties and individual politicians during their terms, and that pressure goes a long way. We have the power of "the next election". Votes are extremely powerful voices. They are excellent for running a government. Such a system is much more effective than your idea of a homicidarchy.
Completely right. :bigteeth: I'm not. What form of government works, is for history to decide, not me. Nations and cultures shupld be given the opportunity to develop their own political society and governmental systems for themselves, without outside forces moralising or attempting to impose their own mismatched ideals on them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal
No, they're not. Votes just choose WHO runs the government, then subsequently ignore the promises they made to those who voted for them. And considering that in the 2000 election, despite getting LESS votes nationwide than Gore, he still won the election simply by winning more "electoral votes"...Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal
Not only does the system which you support not result in the people having any real say if a President is elected by a majority, the system doesn't even result in the voice of the majority determining who governs! Your system is laughable, even by its OWN STANDARDS.
Regardless of my opinions of the effectiveness of "democratically" "elected" "representative" "government", what really gets at me, is that the system you support doesn't even come close to achieving what it is aimed at doing.
I am not asking you to make a decision for the world. I am/was asking you to answer a simple question in a very unofficial converation. If it is not for you to decide what form of government works, why is it for you to decide what form of government does not work? You have all of these complaints, yet you offer no solutions other than fucking tribe meetings and dependent totalitarianism. And I can't believe you didn't even attempt to add to that pathetic list I put up. You are way too opinionated on government and what does not work to not have an opinion on what does work, aside from tribal meetings and small country totalitarianism. Why are you too ashamed to express your opinion? I know you have one. Does it just really embarass you or something?Quote:
Originally Posted by The
You think nations and cultures should be given the opportunity to decide their own political society and governmental systems for themselves? That sounds nice, and I agree. The million dollar question is what kind of government allows that. It sure as Hell isn't any form of totalitarianism, like the one Iraq had during the Hussein reign of severe oppression. What suggestion do you have for achieving what you are talking about? Oh yeah, you won't say.
Big deal if we use an electoral college system. It is still the votes that have the power. Our system of democratically elected government works very well. That is why we are, as YOU said, an economic, military, and social superpower. Right? We didn't get there by tribe meetings.
With all the discussion of what government works, doesn't work nad what have you I would like to bring this to the table, Derived from O'nus's post America & The Decline And Fall Of The Roman Empire
I understand where both sides are coming from.
You can be well versed and educated on a topic but not proclaim to have a solution.
It is easy however to stand aside and say I don't believe in any government (possibly because of the belief that none have been successful)
I personally feel that our founding fathers had set out a tremendous form of government. But it is a form of government that is Bipartisan in nature.
But human nature is what will destroy it. .and liberals
Ima jump in, woohooo!
Lets see, where to start...
Most countries actually have developed their governments from scratch. After all, technically speaking, it all started with prehistoric cavemen who bossed over their weaker fellows. After many forms of autocracy, aristocracy, democracy and what have you, many countries have come to the system America has nowadays. Sure, there's plenty of things to disagree with in this system of democracy.
The one with the most votes can still lose, once elected, the winner can just ignore the people who elected him/her and, in my humble opinion, the people in general just aren't intelligent enough to carry the responsibility of choosing the one to govern them at all.
However, I don't see how this can be a solid ground to oppose the system itself, since even though it may suck, we don't have anything better.
Now, I'm obviously implying democracy as we know it is the best system around. To avoid confusion, I'll explain why I'm doing this. It's pretty simple, really. democratic countries are the places where people generally are happiest, having rights to things like minimum wages, free speech and fair trials. No, I have no research results proving this, but I'm still making this claim and hope everyone will agree with me here, and if not, I'll see what we can do about that.
TBM, your point of letting a country find its own form of government strikes me as illogical. The likely result of this would be a huge civil war in Iraq where everyone murders eachother, until the one with the most henchmen crowns himself emperor of a new nation. he will then proceed to build himself an enormous palace and torture everyone who doesn't publicly worship him.
Of course, this is just my guess, and I may be wrong, but I can surely say that whatever the outcome would be, it would be a result of great bloodshed and it would suck at least as much as American democracy, if not more.
Basically, what I'd like to know is why letting everyone in Iraq alone and seeing what happens is the way to install a new government there (or anywhere for that matter).
Oh, and secondly, why reject democracy and every other form of government if no one knows anything better, even though we do need one (form of government)? That's like ceasing to eat any type of food period because you always think it could have been cooked better.
Last but not least, I would like to present everyone that's read my post with this: :dancingcow:
I don't think it's directly the cause of democracy. I think it's more to do with how dependant the governmental system is on the support of the people it purports to govern. In democracies, there is a tendency for governments to be more dependant. However in America at present, despite purporting to be a "democracy", there are actually a lot LESS rights and freedoms than other countries - I think this is because the government has simply become TOO POWERFUL. And rather than a culture of civil disobediance, which can be helpful to counter the government growing in power, America has for the most part just let it happen.Quote:
Originally Posted by Umbrella
Firstly, it's not illogical. Bad word. It's unpalateable, sure. But the thing is: Western countries went through similarly bloody processes to get to the semi-stable political systems they have currently. Why should we not expect middle eastern countries to do the same? Middle eastern countries, many of them anayway, are hundreds of years behind more modern countries (politically) and so it is only to be expected that they go through a SIMILAR process as did we.Quote:
Originally Posted by Umbrella
The "emperor" example you give is a possible evewntuality. But even then, that would likely be an intermediate step.
This process of political and cultural development will take decades... centuries, even. And, it may be bloody at times - but then that is to be expected, for our own process of political development was similarly bloody.
At MOST, more modern countries should be using indirect influence or direct intervention to try to minimise the violence and suffering as a result of this process. But we should NOT be intervening in the process itself, and stopping it, and imposing our own political systems on a people that are not, and may never be, suited to that system.
The important thing is that I'm not judging American "democracy" by MY standards, but, I am judging it by its OWN STANDARDS. Supposedly, the American system, as you describe, is "democratic", "representative", represents the will of the people, and lets the people have a say in who runs government, and how they run government. I'm flat-out telling you it's NOT and DOESN'T. The American system does not even come close to doing what it purports to do, and doing what the people believe they, and their government, stand for.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal
You seem so sure. :?Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal
With regards to Iraq: No, I really, honestly, have no opinion at this stage. I do, however, want to see Iraq lefty alone to develop its own political system. I would watch with interest in Iraq and similar countries, though the process might take decades. Iraq and other countries have such a different culture that I simply CANNOT form an opinion on what system of government may work. Not only is the culture different, but the relative place in the timeline of political development is so different.
HOWEVER. Since you really MUST have an opinion of some sort? Though I do not have one with regards to Iraq, I feel I can venture some opinions on countries which, politically, temporally and culturally, are closer to my own.
America, for instance: Two party system. Bad. I would favour an MMP type system over FPTP.
firstly, the vote's don't have any power. All they do is determine which of two massively powerful parties gets in and then ignores the people who elected them and breaks or ignores most promises made. Elected government is NOT democracy. Not even CLOSE TO.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal
As for America prospering. Sure, your system has resulted in a massively powerful government which has in turn made the nation wealthy.
But at what cost? It seems to me that the more powerful America gets, the more your "rights" and "freedoms" are being eroded. Patriot act, for instance. The more powerful America gets, the more virulent the propaganda spouted by your governments. The PEOPLE do not control the political parties. The POLITICAL PARTIES control the people.
I do agree with you that the invasion of Iraq was a terrible idea, because making other countries into democracies isn't America's (or any Western country's) business. However, retreating all troops now that they're there would probably be more cruel than the mere fact that America invaded at all. After all, European countries had to grow into a democracy itself, but now that there's an opportunity, the Western world (forgive my wording) might as well try to speed up the process for Iraq, assuming it would eventually have wound up becoming a democracy as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by The
A completely different issue is your rejection of democracy and all other forms of government. Sure, you're against the Western world trying to change the governmental structure of Iraq. Understandable. In fact, like I said before, I agree. However, you've also stated you're against democracy in general.
In your above reply, you make it seem like you're actually against America's democratic system, as opposed to that in many European countries, for instance. If that's the case, then I once again agree with you.
If you just mean you're against democracy in general, then I'm still not following you.
Personally I'll always be for the best possible option, even if I have to choose from two (or more) lesser evils, and I think it works that way for most people. Saying "I don't want this, this way is better" makes sense to me. Saying "This is the best possible solution but it still sucks so I'll choose no solution at all" doesn't. In fact, in this case it seems impossible. As far as I see, the only way to live without any governmental structure is in an anarchical society, but you said you don't want that either.
Care to explain?
(P.S: Another dancing cow to everyone happy and inspired :dancingcow: .)
I totally agree. That is exactly what happens when the people don't have a system where they have voices. The only way to get rid of the system you described is overthrow. Then a new system, by the people, has to be put in place. Even if the current population is in large part too brainwashed to appreciate the change, especially during an occupation, their future generations for the rest of history will be very grateful.Quote:
Originally Posted by Umbrella
The "two party system" that you think means we don't have a democracy is actually the result of democracy. As I have said several times, the "two party system" is a result of the will of the people. We have many political parties. It is just that the Democrats and Republicans are so powerful, as a direct result of the will of the people, that the other parties generally don't win elections. It's not that our system has a law against it. Ross Perot ran as an Independent for President in 1992 and got really far, for example. If he had not dropped out of the race and later gotten back in it, he very well might have won. Joseph Lieberman just got elected to Congress as an Independent. Jesse Ventura got elected Governor of Minnesota in 1998 as a member of the Reform Party, for another example. We do not have a two party system as a result of some provision in our Constitution. We just have two really powerful parties, as a result of the will of the people. Do you understand that now? And your point about how politicians don't do what they promise is a vast generalization. The threat of not having a political future keeps them in pretty good, though not flawless, check. This system is the best for allowing the will of the people to run the government. Ruthless dictatorhips suck at it.Quote:
Originally Posted by The
Our level of freedom is not perfect, but it is really good. I disagree big time with the War on Drugs (and the 4th Amendment tramplings that result from it) and our prostituion laws and alcohol provisions. I also think the Democrats have done way too much to impose on the economic rights of business owners and the rich. But you can do pretty much anything you want to do here, as long as you don't step on other people's rights. The ruthless dictatorships that rise up in chaotic places that are "left alone" are a trillion light years from that.
Huh? WTF? Then what the Hell is, other than tribe meetings?Quote:
Originally Posted by The
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/democracy
Lol there is so much that strikes a bad note with me, from Universal Mind's posts that I don't know what to say!
I think I'll just reply to this:
- It has always seemed completely the opposite. The apparently typical American; normally going gung-ho with any wild right-wing psychopath's ideals. It's the same in the UK, to a lesser extreme. Perhaps the democrats seem to good to be true, because in comparison to the crappiness preceding them makes it appear to be so?Quote:
It is always the Democrats that get all Hell bent on convincing as many people as possible to vote. That is because the uninformed people are usually going to vote for Democrats. On the surface, the ideas of the Democrats seem to make sense. It takes analysis to see through the surface illusions, and the uninformed are not going to do that. They will just say, "Hey, the Democrats are against poverty. They pass laws against racism too. And they think guns are bad. Hmmmm.... Democrats will raise taxes and pay to fix everything. Gosh, that's a real good idear. They know how to get the government to solve every problem. I'll vote for them." It takes extra thought to understand the importance of low taxes in a capitalist system, how welfare gone mad encourages poverty, the futility of programs that ignore the necessity of competition, the disproportionate effect of gun bans on criminals and non-criminals, and the other counterproductive attributes of big government.[/b]
And this:
- Well the whole idea of political-party-based democracy is a stupid concept. Not only this, but the American voting system is also ancient and riddled with flaws. You say it jokingly but tribal meetings can work fine. They're still used to this day, to an extent, in modern western life;)Quote:
Huh? WTF? Then what the Hell is, other than tribe meetings?[/b]
What happened to Jessie Ventura?
At first I thought..what a joke. Then I read two of his books. This guy made sense! He was truly bipartisan. Hence the reason he was independent.
But he said himself, that that is what drove him out of politics. The partisinship. nothing gets done.
Honestly I can't stand most democrats and liberals. I have always been sided more toward a Republican. But I see so many flaws in both parties.
If anyone gets a chance, seriously, get the Cd at most libraries from Ventura.
What democrats boast is too good to be true. They rise and fall on public opinion. They are empty.