It just kind of popped into my head one day. We are living in an
increasing materialistic society where everyone seems to have a
price and where governments are becoming more and more controlling
by gradually stripping away our rights (terrorist act?).
Technology becomes smaller and smaller until, one day
we may have no privacy due to spy cameras and recording
devices smaller than a thumbtack, without us even realising it we have become
controlled by a totalitarian government capable of observing and controlling
us on a whim. My question is this, can a democracy based on the will of the
people survive when the people are no longer capable of making their own
decisions that will benefit society rather than the individuals themselves?
American government is more of a republic any way.
Voter turnout isn't exactly what it used to be and the country that is rising
the most in power on the world stage is a massive communist(?) government
ruling it's hordes of people with an iron fist (China).
Just trying to get people talking.

America is on the wrong track, yes, but it's not too late for us. Some terrible things have been done in the name of national security, and if fear really guides your life and your vote, then you shouldn't be living here. We as Americans should be smarter than that. We know that no amount of security is worth giving up our right to privacy, or our right to say what we want, where we want.

But it's not too late to change. We need to take the country back into our own hands, and out of the hands of the special interests. The people are the ones who govern this country, not them. Once we realize that, we'll be able to start pulling ourselves up again, and showing to the world how truly great we are.

That's where the problem lies.

Democracy is a fundimentaly flawed concept as it is, and thus has no chance of working

All people have good qualities and bad qualities, and one of those bad qualities in most people is not knowing what is actually best for them

And this is why democracy will never work, people know what they want not what they need

England isn't really a democracy, we get to pick who our rulers are yes, but none of the parties are any good and the system is heavily rigged in such obvious ways that its not even funny, and America is even worse

A true democracy would have every change to the vote, as such there would be no room for equal rights or representations as the majority could well vote to opress minorities for their own benefit, and this has happened in many countries around the world, many people would quickly be out of work because the majority of people disagree with their jobs, and just think what would happen if taxes were ever put to the vote - any country using a true democracy would very quickly fall apart

Imo, the best system would be a benevolent dictatorship, where people have no right to pick their leader, or decide anything, and have their rights and liberities dictated to them, they need what is best for them forced onto them
Of course, nearly anyone would very quickly become corrupt given such power, but I know a few people who I would trust to do the job

How free are the American people? Things could be worse.



Those are some dangerous words, Mordax Praetorian, but words I mostly agree with. I have no faith in a government being established that isn't unfair and oppressive to at least one person, which is too many in my opinion. There won't be one thats even close to such a small number of casualties to the flaws of a government.

I don't have faith in any government. Every version has potential for disaster, and it's almost always caused by inept, power-hungry or corrupt rulers.
As for the U.S.A. having done terrible things, wake up and take a look at the history of any other country. Every single country in this world has done things to be terribly ashamed of. None are really any better than the rest.

And most people generally do know what's best for them in the long run, they're just not mature and/or responsible enough to follow through. Especially in the U.S.A., where everyone wants instant gratification. So many people spend every penny they earn and don't save anything for rainy days that their whole financial life falls apart if they lose their job for even a few weeks, the fridge dies, they have a car wreck, or some other non-disaster that they should have planned for. I keep a stash of money put aside in a savings account for stuff like that.
I gotta say I'm sick of our government bailing out everyone and every company that gets itself in trouble. That defeats the whole purpose of free market in my opinion. If there's not enough demand for a product or service, let it die. Bailing them out also removes responsiblity, so everyone just does what they want and expects the government to take care of them every time any little thing goes wrong.

Example is flooding that happened this year in my area. Hundreds of people living on the shore of a local lake want the gov't to pay for their damages. HELLO?? You live right on the lake in a frickin' floodplain and you didn't buy flood insurance? Just because it hasn't flooded in the last several years, you thought it would never flood? Screw you, don't expect me to pay for your repairs with my tax dollars.

Another example is the whole housing mess. I think the lenders need to take most of the responsibility for this one, but an awful lot of the folks who signed the no-down-payment loans, interest-only loans, variable rate loans, or took on more debt than they could handle, should have known better.

If people want to be "free" then they better learn to take care of themselves. If they want a babysitter taking care of all their problems, then yeah, we may as well become a dictatorship.

Yeah, I'm going off on the whole "People need to learn responsibility" rant again. I think this is the third time.

O'RLY?

Now explain what Lichtenstein, Andorra or Montenegro did to be terribly ashamed of?

I think the fact that many of us have never heard of those countries is something to be ashamed of... lol, just kidding.

I think the point that he is trying to dictate is that every countries has its problems, either that be from oppression, hatred, or so on. I think it is even SADDER is that the countries that have the most publicity are the ones that have the most problems. That is why America can be such an easy target for critisim and backlash of vengeful people. But I think that the idea of democracy is a good one, even if not perfect. But then again, what course of government is perfect?

The only problem that I see right now in American voting is the electoral college, it is seriously flawed. This is the reason why Al Gore lost to George W. Bush that one year when Gore had the popular vote, but not the electoral vote.

But yes, the rights of liberty and all that jazz was soiled by stupid people (those who wish to do harm, to be greedy, and are just ignorant).

I think you'll find that America could use more parties and a "Reselect Candidates" option

Britain needs the latter as well

The correct way to vote is to write the word "Reform" in all of the boxes, that way the vote is counted but not for any particular party, putting forward a clear statement that you think everyone sucks

Sounds good.

Better than democracy. I don't like democracy. I think the Ancient Greeks did it best - as in, every [acronym="that is, every adult male who owned land and was never a slave."]person [/acronym]voted on important issues if they wanted to. And if you wanted to vote for the minority the people around you would beat you, possibly to death, and that'd learn you for going against the mob. Democracy - the nice way of saying mob rules.


I think you're kidding yourself.

Your government has made it legal for them to come into your home in the middle of the night and drag you away without cause or explanation. Once you reach that point, the people aren't in control. Hell, when Bush first got in power he actually lost the election.

When your democratic decisions are ignored, you have no power.


The problem is you want a benevolent dictator.

If you rely on an amoral but competent dictator, s/he can't be corrupted.


I don't know that you really get money-lending as a concept.

They want everybody to need them desperately. It gives them more power. Money's just a way of keeping score.

QUOTE(Verbose @ Apr 13 2008, 11:10 AM) [snapback]189202[/snapback]

I don't know that you really get money-lending as a concept.

They want everybody to need them desperately. It gives them more power. Money's just a way of keeping score.

Oh, I get it just fine, which is why I don't have a house, even though I could easily qualify for one of those 125% loans, no-interest loan, or a no-down-payment loan (note that I said "qualify for", not "afford"). I'd love to have my own place, but I don't believe the loan companies when they say I can afford a house. They don't know me and have no f%&^ing idea what I can afford, nor do they really care. I do.
Banks don't give a damn if I can actually afford the payments or not - if I bought a house and defaulted, they'd get to foreclose on the house and keep all my payments and fees, then sell the house to someone else.
Same with the credit card companies. They want everyone to think they absolutely have to have credit cards, and almost no one does. They even distribute literature to high schools (giving perks to the schools for allowing them to do so) trying to convince the students that spending up to 20% of your take-home pay on revolving debt is OK and acceptable.
Credit cards are handy in some situations (renting cars, buying airplane tickets, buying things online), but you don't really need one.

With the proper financial planning, it's possible to buy almost everything you'll ever need (even automobiles) without using credit.

Sadly, I believe the concept of democracy was doomed from the get-go. A true democracy actually considers what the people wants, and then acts on those wants. out government today is ruled by the likes of the Kennedy's and Clinton's, and anyone else who thinks they know what we want. And I don't know about you, but I don't want someone who says they need to take our stuff away from us so that we can live better making decisions that effect my life. But that may just be me.

Course it doesn't. Screwtape has said so.

Well, The Screwtape Letters is not exactly a definitive source of democracy definitions. our country is ruled by corporations, who have the politicians in their pockets because of their money. So in all honesty, the U.S is closer to a fascist state then a democracy. We achieved Mussolini's dream a lot more efficiently then he ever did.

Oh, so you do get it.

It's not their fault that people utilise their services irresponsibly. Same with gambling. Unless you're pro-governmental control, they are simply offering a service to people who are paying for the service.


Of course it is. This is why you don't have to get a loan or a credit card. It's something you have to apply for.


To paraphrase Terry Goodkind, gang rape is a democratic decision.

Yay, democracy!

It annoys me when people act as though the notion of democracy is some sort of high ideal. It's just saying that whichever course of action is most popular is right. If you want to back democracy, what Germany did to Jews in the late 1930s to mid 1940s was a democratic decision. Most of the people in Germany supported the action. You know, so long as you weren't a Jew.


You do realise you're not a Democratic country, right?

You're a Democratic Republic. As in, you vote to elect a representative to make all your decisions. It's kind of the foundation of your governmental system. The democracy is secondary to the republic aspect.

True, that's what republic is about.

And you do get flavours of republic. America has the democratic republic but there's also the more oldschool hereditary republic. Basically, you belong to some dude because his dad used to own you.

It's more or less what the Romans used to do.

I think democratic republic would maybe work differently (mind you, I didn't say BETTER. I said DIFFERENTLY) if the terms were 1 year instead of 4.

I understand the concept of a democratic republic, and I know how it works. However, even in a democratic republic the representatives are supposed to vote the way the people want and not the way that lines their pocketbooks. Did you know it only takes the average senator 2 years to become a millionaire in Washington? And that's when the average salary for a senator is only 100,000 a year. Hmmm.... I wonder where all that extra money come from.

Actually, as I understood it, strictly speaking your senators aren't really supposed to do anything of the sort.

They tell you how they stand, you pick them. They then vote as they see best. If you don't like how they vote, you replace them next time around.

While that's how it's supposed to work, money makes the world go round. And because of that, everything out politicians said they stood for goes right out the window the minute a bribe comes around.

Well, yeah. Of course.

As though you're going to vote on principle in the same position. They bribe everyone. Voting on principle is throwing your vote away.

Since your vote won't count, may as well take the bribe.

True. I just couldn't be a politician. I'm afraid of getting all oily.

I don't go into politics because it'd take me at least three concurrent long and succesful political careers to get things heading in the direction I want.

Well, i'm glad you think you could actually get something done. That's near-impossible in today's political world.

Doing the right thing for the United Kigdom would be easy

Step 1: Leave the European Union
Step 2: Round up all the Lawyers, Animal Rights Activists, Environmentalists and Carol Singers, put them on boats and leave them in the middle of the atlantic (without boats)
Step 3: Ban all talking/anthropamorphic animals from the media to avoid more Animal Rights Activists

This is why I'd make a bad prime minister, I'd do whats best for the country rather than the people in it (who would mostly be dead)

But I realise I have power issues, so no political career for me

Yeah. most politicians don't realize that power goes to your head. At least not at first.

I ran an online gaming clan once, I only realised just how bad my power issues were when I dissolved it

Maybe most rulers/high ranking politicians are the same, they stand down/get deposed and suddenly realise what an arse they've been

I don't have enough faith in humanity consider it more than a maybe though

I always have to hold at least a little faith in my fellow man. Without that, we can't relly call ourselves human because hope is what defines us as a species. What seperates us from the animals.

I'd be happy with not being human, the same way I'd be happier not being british, and happer not being Christian

Its just so embarrising to be asociated with any of those groups sometimes, even if I'm just as bad as everyone else in those groups

I think a lot of people find thaose groups annoying sometimes. I think the reason so many people get away from Christianity is because a lot of them Are such huge Bible thumpers that they forget that being a Christian means loving, not hate and bigotry.

I don't know. I always thought an advancec cognitive process and the ability to educate young through story-telling instead of experience was a pretty neat distinction myself.

Okay, sorry, I got into the discussion late. To answer the topic question, yes, Democracy has a chance. Everything has a chance, I think the question you're asking is HOW MUCH of a chance. In the United States, there's an extremely small chance of being a true Democracy, as was already stated we're a Democratic Republic. This was the way things were originally set up due to the founding father's belief that the common person was not educated enough to establish and run a country. If one will look, however, they'll see that the systems were based upon Greece and Rome, which isn't surprising considering nearly everything in Western Europe was based in part on those systems.

The main problem now is that these systems are overburdened. The way things are set up, with a President changing every 4 years, forces the first term to be nearly a solid re-election campaign. If the President was barely elected (or lost the popular vote) then their first year is going to be absolute hell where almost none of their campaign promises will be accomplished. Also, the political system is still the basic same since the late 1700's. Of course there have been some changes, but our elected officials are still working with the same system that was created so long ago when it took weeks for a letter to be delivered. Now in an age of instant information there's a serious problem with getting everything done as so much has been added to the workload, decreasing the effectiveness of the government. This isn't to say our politicians aren't knowledgeable, as most of them actually are/have to be knowledgeable in their fields. The problem comes from the lack of appeal to most people in the country since it doesn't matter if they do fifty things right, because the one mistake they make will doom their entire careers due to the media playing on the ignorance of the populace.

I'm going to actually ignore most of the things Mordax Praetorian has stated, since his not wanting to be human, british, or christian are all easily solveable with the distinction of the first one. Your answers for the last two are: move and change nationality (Prague is a wonderful city), and become Muslim, Budhist, Daoist, etc.

Raven 2552 has an excellent point that power corrupts. Look for example at Newt Gingrich and the republican party in the early 1990's. Their policy of destroying Democratic control of the Senate undermined a lot of work and made the people think that no one in Washington was doing their jobs at the time. All of that destruction of reputation was done simply so their party could be in power again. In this case the want of power led to a disruption and destruction of a system that was working rather well for the time.

I apologize for the lengthy post, most of which will probably be ignored , but as a history teacher I find it difficult to sit back and watch people say that something doesn't work when it just isn't working at the time, or that Democracy doesn't have a chance when there's a very good chance of things working if people would just take the time to work on them and do the research. (That's the problem right there).

Sorry for any offense to anyone.

I do assume you're familiar with the fact that violence was not uncommon in either the Roman Senate or Graecian votes.

What's more, the Ancient Greek system was every bit as susceptible to the cult of personality. A persuasive speaker would sway the mob and dissenting voices silenced with ridicule or fists.

I've yet to see anybody attempt to explain to me why democracy is any better than a dictatorship. This is not levelled at anybody but since democracy is apparently so wonderful everybody has to defend it, I'd like to see what I'm clearly missing.

For the people who say violence doesn't solve anything, I point out the last 5,000 years of human history. It seemed to solve a lot of stuff quite well.

Oh of course Rome and Greece were filled with violence and death in the Senate. On top of that, if you find the number of Emperors that were absolutely insane it's not even funny. (Nero and the burning of Rome, Caligula (I believe) tried to make his horse a senator etc)) You won't find me arguing that point at all.
As you pointed out also, Greece would have persuasive speakers who could get whatever they wanted. The man who led the naval defense of Thermopylae is one such man, having lied outright to get money appropriated to the Greek Navy. Not a bad thing at all, but something the ruler of Athens heavily opposed.

The reason I see Democracy as better than a Dictatorship is a simple reason. The system of checks and balances. A dictator can do whatever he/she (refered to as he from now on) wants to with no one to stop him. To mention one of your own points, a Dictator can be just as excellent at swaying public opinion in whatever way he wishes so that the people fall completely in line with him. Hitler was an incredible public speaker, and managed to convince an entire nation of people that the ideal person was blonde and blue eyed while he himself had dark hair and dark eyes, let alone the travesty of the holocaust. With a Democratic Government there's more opportunity for changes since the power isn't entirely in the hands of one man. It CAN be, but that's why a well set up system will take steps to prevent that from happening.
Bush is actually a horrible example to use Democracy for, since he illustrates very well how it caused problems. He's not a good President, he's not a decent President, and it would be pushing it to say he was mediocre. However, once the house and senate were no longer run by the same party (a failing of having only a two party system, not really the set-up of democracy) most of Bush's crappy ideas were at least slowed down. The problem with a Democracy, that a Dictatorship doesn't have, is that a President cannot simply shove everything he wants through. Dictators have the power of the military, economy, and livlihood all controlled tightly or else it would be easy for someone to overthrow them and become the next Dictator. It makes it very difficult to have stability conducive to a nation's growth when rebellions are popping up all over the place.
What makes it difficult to really analyze a Dictator versus Democracy is that there's really no good examples of a Dictator not corrupted by power. Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Polpot, Chauchescu, etc. They all have the stereotype of people where absolute power corrupted absolutely. All told you have probably around 70,000,000 people dead by the policies of those men since government failed the civilians. While Democracy is screwed up in America, you don't see millions dying every year due to starvation, brutal beatings from secret police interrogation squads, etc. I won't try to say there isn't problems with justice, or that there aren't large problems with the way things are going in the US, just that while people in a Dictatorship have to wait decades for their ruler to die or be overthrown in a (normally) bloody coup, we have to wait 4 years and vote for someone else.

I'm not trying to take a huge stance on Democracy, I just have a problem with Dictatorships, having had a teacher who survived the holocaust and talked about them, and a teacher in college who had to escape over the Berlin wall while dodging bullets because he couldn't see his family on the other side due to another Dictator...seems to me that they aren't the best idea.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely. It's been true since the beginning of time.

Hm, a dictatorship is not necessarily totalitarian nor brutal. It merely means that the power is concentrated. The description "dictatorship" says absolutely nothing about how the power is used, however.

Benevolent dictatorship - possible in theory.

though i may not agree with what you say sir. i defened to the death your right ot say it!
but yes i do agree that the goverment is getting a bit to controlling, but in anyworld you can't take somthing with out giving somthing in return. we give a littel freedom for the whole. yes america is in a slope but were better off the alot of other countries. democracy in itself is probable the most succesful system of goverment ever known to man kind.... where as communisim.... yea.... well we know how that always turns out.


P.S. "are you draining more blood so that we can draw the map out of the swords again?" *richard looks to the left, then down, then back at cale* yes

btw merabela or whatever QUESTION! how do i get the little thread thingy for my character? o.o also do you know wtf Richard is wearing? i want them on my warlock

-after another post from elonth this post became irrelevant to the discussion-

i dont wana agree with you because it shows the worst of humanity... but i gota agree cuz i believe the exact same thing. also on that note... if we pull out of iraq 100% who wants to take a guess on what happens? anyone anyone?
heres mine, the extremist muslims will move into the power vaccume killing anyone that supported democracy even people that didnt speak out against it. causing mass murder and maybe a civil war if the non extremisists live that long... who will fuel this war... why iran of course... then we get sent in the its iraq all over again... oh but wait something else could come of this... yes its coming to me now the spark of ww fin 3, which chances are will be the apocolypse cuz some nut job is going to launch a nuke

I will agree that a Benevolent Dictatorship is possible in theory. But then again, in theory Communism works perfectly. As was said earlier, the problem with a Dictatorship is that the power corrupts to absolutely...well said Raven 2552. Well said.

Edit to refer to the above post: Communism doesn't even work in theory. The people who say that pay too much attention to the Simpsons.

Any attempt to reconcile even a basic understanding of human nature means the theory doesn't go anywhere. Too selfish by far, too lazy by far.

Even Karl Marx knew his theory wasn't realistic - he believed that Communism was the eventual next step in governmental change.


I would suggest the 5000 years of constant violence says otherwise.


Actually, aside from some hugely biased accounts, the only Princeps we actually have good reason to believe was mad in any fashion was poor Claudius. He had a speech impediment which nearly kept him from assuming the position but he managed because he was able to do speeches without dribbling on himself if it was prepared for him.

I, myself, am much more partial to the notion that Caligula was an iron-fisted little prick (mostly due to watching his father deal with military authority all his formative years) with a twisted sense of humour (by all accounts, he only claimed he could make his favourite racing horse a member of the senate). Nero probably wasn't as debauched as claimed either, seeing as coinage from his reign is no more debased than it was under Augustus.


And instead you divide a country into partisan politics and reduce the effectiveness of any leader trying to act decisively.

If America wasn't so prosperous, it would only be a matter of time before Democrats and Republicans came to violence. Say what you like about tyrants and despots, they tend to be very uniting. Saddam Hussein managed to make Iraq a nation. Sure, he did it by executing any of the old tribal/religious groups who refused to claim to be purely Iraqi but he managed to keep his people safe (from everyone but the Americans) and stable.


And it's nearly impossible for any leader to actually lead when they spend the first four years (in your system) making sure they get re-elected. And after that, of course, they simply don't care. Short of impeachment, they have the job until the end of their second term and they can't get another so what purpose is there in doing well by their people?

And your assumption of rebellions popping up all over ignores a lot of historical precedent. After all, a Monarchy is a dictatorship of a certain type. As is an Empire. Traditionally speaking, there are many more successful dictatorships than democracies. Even the great Roman Republic wasn't democratic. And Greece, bastion of philosophy and democracy that it is, only rarely had international success. Hell, it was exceedingly uncommon for the Greek cities to even be united as one nation.


Instead you have hundreds of thousands of foreign people who get murdered every time the American government needs to turn the eyes of the people outwards.

And I refer to my above comment. There are numerous accounts of successful dictators from Augustus to Victoria. We just usually call them something else because dictator has such pejorative connotations.


Pompous whining from people who have no power.

Power doesn't corrupt. It reveals.

It's the same as wealth. Having it doesn't change who you are, it brings you out. What better way to let somebody be themselves than by giving them ultimate force to support their opinions?


Wow! Amazing insight!

You know what I think? I think Iraq was a stable country that was not threatening anybody until America went in there and executed the chief (if horrible) peace-maker. Now people in America are concerned because their unprovoked and unsolicited attack on a peaceful nation might backfire on them and maybe, just maybe, the people who've had their families killed by indiscriminate bombing (all of whom will be labelled Muslim Extremist, because only a dirty, evil Muslim would fight against the Great Christian America) might want to turn the weapons America sold them a generation ago on a new target.

Now you're stuck leaking resources and soldiers into a war you can't win because it's not a war and never has been. It's an occupation - something American troops are not trained to deal with. By all accounts, American soldiers preform admirably in combat situations but are notoriously bad at occupation. Children get gunned down at checkpoints for playing with sticks. Innocent families slaughtered at the merest sign of possible resistence. So the people there get angrier and angrier. American soldiers have to travel in groups because there's all too many civilians willing to kill them if they got the chance.

The soldiers aren't trained to deal with this at all. This isn't combat. There aren't clearly defined lines. A "terrorist" throws a molotov cocktail and turns a corner and now there's no way to distinguish him from any other civilian. Soldiers are backed into a corner. In order to survive they start to treat the occupation like a combat situation. It becomes us and them, them being anybody who isn't us. Violent responses from American troops increase over time as the soldiers are put under more and more stress. The same thing that took its toll in Vietnam is slowly starting to seep accross an entire country.

Now America can't pull out. They removed the relatively non-religious dictator and now the only people who can and will step into a power vacuum are the religious extremists. Suddenly, America is stuck. They lose more and more soldiers but as time goes on they can afford to pull out of the country less and less. Send in more troops to try and help hold the dam. The more misunderstandings that happen, the more pressure the people put the soldiers under which causes more misunderstandings. Before long people who wouldn't have ever been convinced by the zealous fanatics are suddenly throwing rocks when they get the chance.

So congratulations for supporting a theory (and really, eliminating withdrawing leaves only occupation and genocide) that will pretty much guarantee you making a national enemy with nothing to lose.

After all, you've already taken everything they have.

But don't worry. I'm sure if you keep stealing their livelihoods and forcing your notions of good government and religion on them, they'll realise how they were wrong in the first place. Let's not forget they were guilty of the crime of Having Oil And Being Brown.

My prediction if we pull completely out of Iraq? Worse slaughter then we've seen since the genocide in Rawanda. Shiites and Sunnis murdering each other over nothing more then small differences in belief systems. While I don;t agree with the numbers we have over there right now, I think we should at least leave a small peacekeeping force so we can prevent that.

Iraq de facto doesn't really exist anymore. The nothern part of Kurdistan is actively seeking independence (and after the Kosovo farce, who can blame them?), while she Shia ans Sunni guys, as you said, want to grab as much as they can. And then there's Iran and Syria...

Well, it would still be bad. And technically, it would be a genocide of the Shiite sect by the Sunnis because the Sunnis are a very militant arm of Islam.

Don't we all miss the days when all three groups spent most of their time cowering in terror before Hussein?

For all his faults, the guy knew how to run a country without division.

Exactly.

By murdering whole villages who hadn't done anything with chemical weapons. oh yes, he so deserved to be in power. How many of his own people did he kill? I've read the figure is close to like 15 million over the last 10 years.

Considering the entire Iraq population is ~27 million, 15 million would mean over 30% of the population. Now call me crazy but isn't that a tad much to speculate?

And, if gassing the Kurds was such a crime...why did the west turn the blind eye when it happened? Why did the West move only after he turned away from their agendas?

We have a hornet's nest of inconsistencies here.