Democracy? hehe funny

[jverne]

"Every government is democratic. Yes, for the leading class. They have the right to chose, the rest of us have the right to express our opinion on what they chose."

any comments?

 

[gh0st]

i dont know about your country but america isnt a democracy. its a representative republic. if you want true democracy head back a few thousand years and go to ancient greece. no country is a true democracy. we vote for the people we want to make decisions for us. thus we all have the same amount of power.

and no, not every government is democratic. iraq post war, for example, where you had the right to die. no expression of views, and so on.

edit: if this was meant to be funny its really not at all.

 

[jverne]

i dont know about your country but america isnt a democracy. its a representative republic. if you want true democracy head back a few thousand years and go to ancient greece. no country is a true democracy. we vote for the people we want to make decisions for us. thus we all have the same amount of power.

and no, not every government is democratic. iraq post war, for example, where you had the right to die. no expression of views, and so on.

edit: if this was meant to be funny its really not at all.

who are these "we"? me and you or bush and you?
this wasn't meant to be funny, it's just interesting and in more than one ways very true!

lets say you voted for bush, we all know bust is a republican and what if he suddenly changes his mind and makes a law (exagerating) "all americans must have sex with N.Koreans" would you really have any influence on his deccison, you could only disgree with him, despite the fact you voted for him!?

more or less is this what i wanted to discuss!

it was the same with the old greeks, slaves had no rights, hell even women had no rights!

i would say, anarchy is the closest thing to democracy?!

 

[gh0st]

jverne.

we means you and me, and all citizens of america.

the president doesnt just "make" laws, theres a whole process that they go through. that law in particular would never get passed. because of checks and balances we will never have a tyrant, sorry.

not only that, i NEVER SAID AMERICA WAS A DEMOCRACY. it isnt, and if you dont know that im very sorry for you.

slave never have rights, thats why they are slaves. its still a democracy, but thats a debate in its own right. greek women had actually very good rights, even though there wasent much of a suffrage movement then. for example, spartan women owned property and business and so on.

anarchy is just that. anarchy. not even close to democracy. use a dictionary please.

 

[jverne]

jverne.

we means you and me, and all citizens of america.

the president doesnt just "make" laws, theres a whole process that they go through. that law in particular would never get passed. because of checks and balances we will never have a tyrant, sorry.

not only that, i NEVER SAID AMERICA WAS A DEMOCRACY. it isnt, and if you dont know that im very sorry for you.

slave never have rights, thats why they are slaves. its still a democracy, but thats a debate in its own right. greek women had actually very good rights, even though there wasent much of a suffrage movement then. for example, spartan women owned property and business and so on.

anarchy is just that. anarchy. not even close to democracy. use a dictionary please.

yes, yes theres the senate and so forth, but you get the picture!

our country is a republic also, but more or less it all functions on the same principles. yes i do know, but i wasn't referring specifically to the USA, but general.

spartanian women owned property, because most men were in the millitary or fighting somwhere far away, therefore to keep the property there has to be someone watching over it!
but anyway Sparta never had democracy, only Athenes had it for a short period of time.

try to look at this way, in anarchy anybody could get a chanse to lead or make a decision if it was good, in a true democratic system evrybody could get his opinion acknowledged! but in todays democracy we put someone in charge to make the decisions, this is risky, remember Hitler?

 

[Revisedsoul]

sorry dbl post

 

[Revisedsoul]

yes, yes theres the senate and so forth, but you get the picture!

our country is a republic also, but more or less it all functions on the same principles. yes i do know, but i wasn't referring specifically to the USA, but general.

spartanian women owned property, because most men were in the millitary or fighting somwhere far away, therefore to keep the property there has to be someone watching over it!
but anyway Sparta never had democracy, only Athenes had it for a short period of time.

try to look at this way, in anarchy anybody could get a chanse to lead or make a decision if it was good, in a true democratic system evrybody could get his opinion acknowledged! but in todays democracy we put someone in charge to make the decisions, this is risky, remember Hitler?

(on your previous post)democracy needs a government, anarchy is lack there of

no one can be a leader in an anarchist way of life, that itself would go against what anarchy is.

 

[Ennui]

anarchy is not chaos. I'm not an anarchist but anarchy is simply the lack of a government structure.

I know, no one said otherwise. That was preemptive.

gh0st is right, true democracy doesn't exist anymore. We are in fact a representative democracy/republic, we elect officials who then make our decisions for us.

 

[Revisedsoul]

anarchy is not chaos. I'm not an anarchist but anarchy is simply the lack of a government structure.

I know, no one said otherwise. That was preemptive.

gh0st is right, true democracy doesn't exist anymore. We are in fact a representative democracy/republic, we elect officials who then make our decisions for us.

or any sort of social structure

 

[gh0st]

anarchy is also any kind of political disorder, and the absence of any cohesive principle.

 

[Ennui]

right... and it isn't necessarily ineffective.

probably wouldn't work though, for the same reasons as communism - corruption.

 

[jverne]

no one can be a leader in an anarchist way of life, that itself would go against what anarchy is.

who said anything about leaders? chanse to lead, means a chanse to being acknowledged, mabey i've myself expressed incorectly, sorry for that. i mean if someone would give a good argument when deciding something (like "going to war",...) he would be accepted, but his decision would last until another one needs to be chosed, and possibly another person would have the best answer for it, so basicaly there wouldn't be any leaders or a small group of leaders! anybody could participate! this would be a true democratic system, wich saddly is (at least not yet) possible!

 

[jverne]

anarchy is also any kind of political disorder, and the absence of any cohesive principle.

that is because of our egocentric nature!

 

[jverne]

right... and it isn't necessarily ineffective.

probably wouldn't work though, for the same reasons as communism - corruption.

ahh...not true! communism works good (and besides communism is a economical system, not a government), it's socializm (what was and is being practised) which is a republic with a president who has lots of autorithy, therefore corruption is inevitable!

 

[burner69]

i dont know about your country but america isnt a democracy. its a representative republic. if you want true democracy head back a few thousand years and go to ancient greece. no country is a true democracy. we vote for the people we want to make decisions for us. thus we all have the same amount of power.

and no, not every government is democratic. iraq post war, for example, where you had the right to die. no expression of views, and so on.

edit: if this was meant to be funny its really not at all.

HAHA, I found it amusing.

If I voted for Gore first time, I'd be well p*ssed... cuz.. he.. won. But in comes Bush. If I'd voted Bush I'd be well p*ssed cuz this c*nts decided we should have a war on terror, which I don't want us to do, cuz its gunna stir up a hornets nest.

If I watch TV, or read papers though, I'm soon gonna change my mind: We're in constant great danger of attack, only cureable through war, Saddam is helping terrorists, everyone in Afghan is a terrorist, as soon as Iran get nukes they'll attack us, Saddam has good cause to attack us with his 45min WMDs, we are right. WE ARE RIGHT! THERE IS NO OTHER ALTERNATIVE! BUSH IS RIGHT!

"thus we all have the same amount of power."

 

[gh0st]

wow burner, i think you have some unexplored anger you should get some help about. not only have you started this thread on the tired old anti america track, you butcher my example into yet another bullshit anti bush anti america thing. not only that, the entire middle portion of your bumbling, incoherant response has nothing to do with anything. its just... there, im really not sure what to make of it.

and yeah. i dont acknowledge we ALL have the same power. some people are more influential and such, but why shouldent they be? but we as the common man do have the same collective power that outweights that of all 3 branches combined. they are elected in a democratic process and such... your post just seems like bitching from a past election seeing a democrat lose. i bet you wouldent have complained if bush lost this election to a technicality.

 

[burner69]

wow burner, i think you have some unexplored anger you should get some help about. not only have you started this thread on the tired old anti america track, you butcher my example into yet another bullshit anti bush anti america thing. not only that, the entire middle portion of your bumbling, incoherant response has nothing to do with anything. its just... there, im really not sure what to make of it.

and yeah. i dont acknowledge we ALL have the same power. some people are more influential and such, but why shouldent they be? but we as the common man do have the same collective power that outweights that of all 3 branches combined. they are elected in a democratic process and such... your post just seems like bitching from a past election seeing a democrat lose. i bet you wouldent have complained if bush lost this election to a technicality.

I'm not targetting you, you just have opposing views to me. I'm debating, in this case I admit, childishly, but the point was there. It wasn't incoherent, re-read it, there's a point.

You've just retracted your previous belief that we are all equal in democracy then?

I'd complain if bush won under any circumstances. He's evil.
I'm also not american, and the fact he's repuplican does not bother me, it's the fact he's evil.

This tired old argument. I bet all the people being shelled, shot, tortured are tired too. Ah jeez. Let's move on.

Wow, bush is great, he's tossed aside envirnomental agreements, refuses to discuss legalisation of cannabis despite 70% of people in his jails being there on cannabis charges, he puts fear in his citizens to gain votes, he leaves countries he's invaded to die a death, he breaks international law, he allows gay marriage to get banned, essentially breaking basic human rights, he decides which countries can have nuclear weapons (his mates) and who can't (one's he dosen't like), he lies to his people to justify war, he ignores terrorist threats against his country until its good for votes to fight it, he lies to his people about his policies, he is destroying your economy, he undermines the democratic voting system by cheating - invalidating certain votes, and getting a revote stopped because he knew he's lose, he (well, his papa) arms unstable countries for money then blows them up, he removes one dictator to install someone who looks likely to be just like the last, he covers up his allys faults (like Saddams mass graves) until they're no longer his ally and he says silly things like "More and more of our imports are coming from abroad" haha, funny guy.

Any way, let's move on from this tired argument.

 

[jverne]

and yeah. i dont acknowledge we ALL have the same power. some people are more influential and such, but why shouldent they be? but we as the common man do have the same collective power that outweights that of all 3 branches combined. they are elected in a democratic process and such... your post just seems like bitching from a past election seeing a democrat lose. i bet you wouldent have complained if bush lost this election to a technicality.

well, i'm not an american im european, but yes i would fell more relifed if a democrat would win and besides 3/4 of the world would vote for Kerry, so i'm not the only one. anyway you put the isue (USA) up.

ahh...the power of the collective...thats an open question! why (sorry to bring this back up) nobody stoped Bush from attacking Iraq, despite the fact the whole world was against him? the leaders can do what they want, USA is currently the leader, so nobody can do anything against them (you). The more people the easyer are to manipulate, that is because in a collective there is only one point of view (otherwise there wouldn't be a collective), if theres only one to concentrate on it is easyer to manipulate with (change it), if there would be millions of views then you'd never succeed. Therefore there is no power of the collective it is all based on a few individuals! Anarchy (and democracy) is basicaly a collective of individuals, this controversity makes it hardly applicable in the real world, that is why we havent seen it yet!

 

[jverne]

Wow, bush is great, he's tossed aside envirnomental agreements, refuses to discuss legalisation of cannabis despite 70% of people in his jails being there on cannabis charges, he puts fear in his citizens to gain votes, he leaves countries he's invaded to die a death, he breaks international law, he allows gay marriage to get banned, essentially breaking basic human rights, he decides which countries can have nuclear weapons (his mates) and who can't (one's he dosen't like), he lies to his people to justify war, he ignores terrorist threats against his country until its good for votes to fight it, he lies to his people about his policies, he is destroying your economy, he undermines the democratic voting system by cheating - invalidating certain votes, and getting a revote stopped because he knew he's lose, he (well, his papa) arms unstable countries for money then blows them up, he removes one dictator to install someone who looks likely to be just like the last, he covers up his allys faults (like Saddams mass graves) until they're no longer his ally and he says silly things like "More and more of our imports are coming from abroad" haha, funny guy.

Any way, let's move on from this tired argument.

Amen, brother! (ups, anti-bush again, sorry couldnt resist)

 

[burner69]

Bush does all the work, I just talk about it, he deserves more praise than me :upstare: I hate him so much.

 

[clarky003]

how long does it take for a representative republic before it turns into a dictatorship.. there is more room for abusing power in a structure like that depending on how hell bent and what motives the leaders have.. it either works well, or the shit hits the fan.

if you want a good example look no further than HL2, Breen try's to make it seem like a representative republic, between combine and humans, but if you had to label the combine, corruption and greed would be description number one, trace that onto the human condition, and near as damit youve got a replica without any fancy technology and gas masks.

 

[burner69]

The difference is its subtle.

Which is good and bad.

Good: People are not hurt AS MUCH. Still, people do die, get imprisoned, unfairly treated, but not as badly.

Bad: Many people don't even notice it.... haha! Reminds me of the Matrix a bit.

It will never turn into dictatorship, it's just subtle dictatorship, is my point.

 

[clarky003]

could well be,, but resources are needed to sustain that. and last time I checked energy to population growth requirement ratio is going to start suffering around 5 years after oil peak's which is no later than 2010, earliest 2006, you'll notice the start as the price steadily starts to rise mayb level off,, but never come down, and reach extorsionate (typo?) rates, there will be mass protest before it gets really bad, inflation will balloon, increasing numbers of people wont beable to afford to live, the monitory system wont have that decently balanced 2 and Fro-ing anymore , and the infrastructure will completely collapse :/, then i suppose it gets really bad...

40%, of the worlds energy is dependant on oil and oil fabricated fuels pretty much half the world, and they need to churn the barrels out endlessly to keep that up with demand.. its not as long a wait as you think. The US is simply 'stocking up', to hold its position as the population to energy requirement ratio begins to crumble. So there holding the string's, and can literally hold energy suffering countries to ransom, but even then it will fall like a brick when peak production hits, we could be out of oil as early as 2020, with preceeding problems well before then.

its all very complex,, which is why i dont trust government's to a certain degree, not even my own, they just dont keep us informed well enough IMO.

 

[burner69]

Did you know that cannabis can be used as a clean, cheaper oil substitute?

Cheaper

They don't like that word.

 

[clarky003]

and the problems persue :/

 

[burner69]

Exactly

 

[GiaOmerta]

Anarchy... that's what we have in Sicily.

 

[Shad0hawK]

who are these "we"? me and you or bush and you?
this wasn't meant to be funny, it's just interesting and in more than one ways very true!

lets say you voted for bush, we all know bust is a republican and what if he suddenly changes his mind and makes a law (exagerating) "all americans must have sex with N.Koreans" would you really have any influence on his deccison, you could only disgree with him, despite the fact you voted for him!?

more or less is this what i wanted to discuss!

it was the same with the old greeks, slaves had no rights, hell even women had no rights!

i would say, anarchy is the closest thing to democracy?!

bush does not make laws, congress does.

as for women with no rights, you do not have to use ancient greece as an example, simply use a country under islamic law today.

 

[Steve]

bush does not make laws, congress does.

Buddy, bills don't get to become laws unless the Prez slaps his John Hancock on 'em. Jeez...didn't you ever watch School House Rock?

 

[burner69]

as for women with no rights, you do not have to use ancient greece as an example, simply use a country under islamic law today.

And that gives us the right to attack these countries?

How about giving these countries humanitarian aid. Rather than spending money defending ourselves from them, spend money on them, giving them food, water, educating them, so there is no longer a need for strict religious practises to maintain order.

 

[jverne]

how long does it take for a representative republic before it turns into a dictatorship.. there is more room for abusing power in a structure like that depending on how hell bent and what motives the leaders have.. it either works well, or the shit hits the fan.

if you want a good example look no further than HL2, Breen try's to make it seem like a representative republic, between combine and humans, but if you had to label the combine, corruption and greed would be description number one, trace that onto the human condition, and near as damit youve got a replica without any fancy technology and gas masks.

true, true. so basicaly epresentative republic is closest to dictatorship?!
it all makes more sense now:

Republic-Dictatorship (an elite that drives the whole thing)
Democracy-Anarchy (lots of small people, with lots of difrent opinions, negotiating to form a compromise, which drives the whole thing)

basing on this, could we say that the USA is the "new Soviet Union" and all the other (Europe, China,...) are the "new USA"? :frog:

 

[Steve]

basing on this, could we say that the USA is the "new Soviet Union" and all the other (Europe, China,...) are the "new USA"? :frog:

Excuse me...please tell me I'm mistaken...you're saying that the communist oligarchy of China is the new USA?

 

[burner69]

basing on this, could we say that the USA is the "new Soviet Union" and all the other (Europe, China,...) are the "new USA"? :frog:

No, I don't think so