Proof that democracy is the same shit as dictatorship!

[jverne]

Ok, listen:

under a dictatorship you have a 50% of being on the right side (or you are with or you are against)!

in democracy you will never be on the right side because democracy is based on compromises betwen two or more people, in other words half of my idea plus half of your idea equals one whole idea. If someones idea gets more percentage (like 30% red guys and 70% blue guys) that is not democracy anymore that's dictatorship because the majority would have the power to assimilate the minority (or you are with us or you are against us)! ok, there's still the fact that the constitution doesn't allow for such radical changes, but we all know who makes the laws (the majority)!

some practital examples:

Hitlers party had the majority in the parlament during the 30'ies, allowing them to become a dictatorship!
The same was with our country and many others!
In the US the dictatorship of (republicans or democrats) doesn't allow communist partys to be active!

Methods of repression may vary from country to country but in essence...

...dictatorship and democracy is the same shit, because you have the same chanse to be privileged in society or to be a part of it!

any thougts on my "theory"?

 

[Laivasse]

Some will crucify you for insulting their hallowed "democracy", but you're not far off. Of course there are a few honourable people involved in politics, but the ultimate goal of any party is just to get into power and implement their world view. Once they're in power, every thing they do is motivated by their desire to stay there. 'Democracy' in its current form is just a bone thrown out to keep the masses from going wild and overthrowing the authority - it makes people feel content where they would otherwise feel like they had to fight against their insignificance.

I don't want to demean the ideal behind democracy, or the sacrifice made by those who believed they were dying for its cause - it's still the best form of government the world has never seen. But in this day and age, the only way it differs from dictatorship is the PR.

 

[Cons Himself]

in ancient athens each citizen would vote on each issue brought before the demos.

the majority would always carry the day.

 

[short recoil]

No matter what political system you have you will always have a reasonable amount of people who are unhappy with it..........
I don't see there's much point searching for the "perfect" political system, since there is none.
A democracy allows a reasonable amount of choice, however it really should be more in the power of the population rather than government.
Seperation of people and state is always bad as i keep going on about.
Meh, i have no chance of having exactly what i want so i may as well give up and be dragged along with what i'm supposed to do.
Or will i?

 

[clarky003]

I salute the ancient greeks, and doof on the mega corporate governments of today.. its well known that democracey as it stands is almost entirely hypocritical. Its just large numbers of people wont do shit about it unless it effects them directly or they reach a pissed off threshold point... example, the french revolution, vive la revolution Britannique!

 

[Cons Himself]

everyone knows that the intelligence agencies wield disproportionate amounts of power in government.

theyre called intelligence services but theyre basically plain-clothed military units. the global intelligence community is very close knit - they share a lot of information. when richard tomlinson was trying to publish The Big Breach (google thebigbreach.pdf), MI6 harrassed him all over the world and got him thrown out of Italy, Germany, USA, Australia, France etc etc...they had foreign police forces confiscate his computers and documents and had him thrown in jail before he was deported.

basically cross the intelligence community and your life becomes a living nightmare.


i mean they had files on peter madelson and jack straw for gods sake.

 

[GiaOmerta]

We are naturally greedy and jealousy. Any system we develope will be tainted with corruption over time.

What is the Big Breach? Not familiar with that. Peter Madelson, Straw?

 

[short recoil]

everyone knows that the intelligence agencies wield disproportionate amounts of power in government.

theyre called intelligence services but theyre basically plain-clothed military units. the global intelligence community is very close knit - they share a lot of information. when richard tomlinson was trying to publish The Big Breach (google thebigbreach.pdf), MI6 harrassed him all over the world and got him thrown out of Italy, Germany, USA, Australia, France etc etc...they had foreign police forces confiscate his computers and documents and had him thrown in jail before he was deported.

basically cross the intelligence community and your life becomes a living nightmare.


i mean they had files on peter madelson and jack straw for gods sake.

Man, thoughts like that tick me off.
Freedom is a joke really.
I'm not your typical "tin foil helmet" person but the government does have a lot of stuff keeping it far "above" the rest of civilization.
I just wonder what the hell humans over-all are trying to achieve.

 

[Cons Himself]

the big breach is the only book written by an MI6 intelligence officer since the end of the cold war, (spycatcher and David Shayler were MI5)

it describes the training, recruitment and testing processes, some of their techniques. the difference between surveillance, counter-surveillance and anti-surveillance for example. describes richard tomlinsons (the author) placement in bosnia during the war there.

what else? hierarchy of MI6, culture of the organisation, intelligence gathering techniques (recruiting and running agents), transfering information secretly form hostile territory. many other things too. reveals that henri paul (the driver of the car that Princess Diana was killed in) was an MI6 informer (aka agent - employees of MI6 are known as intelligence officers, not agents).

Peter Mandelson and Jack Straw were/are Ministers in the Blair government.

heres a link to the book (has been released onto the net by the author now) in pdf format:

http://nidurhal.gagnauga.is/TheBigBreach.pdf

 

[Cuddlez.ini]

"Democracy is the most vile form of government... democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention: have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property: and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."

- James Madison

Can't remember the other quote but the jist of it is: Democracy is the only form of government that gives power to the weak-minded, stupid, lazy, and irrational. Can't remember who said it either

 

[Cons Himself]

the best quote on democracy is by winston churchill. the least worst system of government he called it.

and property rights in dempocracies are protected more than in a communist country where the concept of private property is anathema

 

[Raziaar]

If a democracy was like a dictatorship, all you liberals would be murdered in your sleep. Trust me, democracy is far better than a dictatorship. At least in america's democracy. And if it were a liberal dictatorship, i'm sure the government would murder all us conservatives. The thing with dictatorships, is that the person in power, has ultimate power, to do anything he wishes. He could order the execution and have it carried out to kill anybody he wanted, such as people who expressed a dislike of the government, just like Saddam did.

 

[JoeCLawrence]

American democracy is not so much a dictatorship as an oligarchy. While our democracy lets the people have a pretty good say in the government, much of the power is in the hands of the rich. Not really ideal, but still a hell of a lot better than despotism.

 

[MjM]

You confuse makeing compromises as being democracy, when in fact that is the very art of Politics. I guess a democratic system without a constitution could be just as bad ultimately as a dictatorship. That is one reason why constitutions exist, they should prevent such total power by some means. Obviously no democracy is perfect, but i think in general, democratic nations, espiecially mature ones in the West, have shown to be reletively progressive, inclusive and 'free' places to live. I hate to sound patriotic. But I like the Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) voting system, we have in NZ.

 

[The Monkey]

That's american democracy, not "normal" democracy. Your two-party system is quite similar to a dictatorship, but the fact that there actually are other parties saves it.

 

[iyfyoufhl]

you are so wrong, that's not what makes democrasy or dictatorship

it's all about choice: duing democrasy citizens of the country deside their leader;
during dictatorship, nobody chooses the dictator

 

[The Mullinator]

you are so wrong, that's not what makes democrasy or dictatorship

it's all about choice: duing democrasy citizens of the country deside their leader;
during dictatorship, nobody chooses the dictator

Except that if 45% of the people in a democratic nation didn't vote for the leader then even though they had a choice it didn't matter in the end and to them the leader can seem like an unfair dictator.

Whereas in a dictatorship you may not have a choice but often you will get a decent person in power who will help the people and make the country a better place.

In ancient Greece the reason democracy was instilled (it came and died off a few times) was often because the elite were fed up with "Tyrants" helping the people and ignoring the elite, so they spread propaganda and had democracy where they had the power instilled.

 

[iyfyoufhl]

Except that if 45% of the people in a democratic nation didn't vote for the leader then even though they had a choice it didn't matter in the end and to them the leader can seem like an unfair dictator.

Whereas in a dictatorship you may not have a choice but often you will get a decent person in power who will help the people and make the country a better place.

In ancient Greece the reason democracy was instilled (it came and died off a few times) was often because the elite were fed up with "Tyrants" helping the people and ignoring the elite, so they spread propaganda and had democracy where they had the power instilled.

that whole fact that they did have a choice is making it democasy (at least in theory), i'm not talking practical wise, i'm talking theory wise, sort of "perfect" democrasy or dictatorship

 

[Cons Himself]

they had an urn in which people would secretly place stones - either white or black. white signifying agreement, and black disagreement with what was being proposed.

and each and every citizen could participate.

and please dont come back with the boring argument of oh no they didnt let women and slaves vote. anyone who judges historical figures and ideals by modern moral values is a fool.

 

[jverne]

you are so wrong, that's not what makes democrasy or dictatorship

it's all about choice: duing democrasy citizens of the country deside their leader;
during dictatorship, nobody chooses the dictator

oh please!!! like bush was voted by the people?
oh, and yeah...Hitler wasn't chosen by the people, right?

what mullinator said is also very true! in democracy rethorics (sp?) had great power because they could convince people to join their side, and guess what social class were this speakers/rethorics? yes, thats right...the elite!

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

"In the US the dictatorship of (republicans or democrats) doesn't allow communist partys to be active!"

Where are you being told things like this? You are free to join whatever party you like. Just because only 8 people agree with you in the entire state doesn't mean you're being disenfranchised or something.

Also, smaller party candidates are elected to public office all the time, just more often on the local level. I see libertarians go into office all the time in local office. In fact, I'd vote libertarians more likely in on mostly local office, and Republicans in on national when I vote. That balance gives my views the most 'direct hits'

oh please!!! like bush was voted by the people?

Uhm, 60 million votes with the nearest opposing candidate getting 57 million, I'd have to say yes he was. As much as it makes you cry, it's fact.

 

[Cons Himself]

oh please!!! like bush was voted by the people?
oh, and yeah...Hitler wasn't chosen by the people, right?

what mullinator said is also very true! in democracy rethorics (sp?) had great power because they could convince people to join their side, and guess what social class were this speakers/rethorics? yes, thats right...the elite!

Socrates spoke out against the Athenian invasion of Sicily, didnt stop the people from voting for it, and he was probably the one of the best orators in history.

Coincedentally, that invasion led to a crushing defeat, and an invasion from Sparta which pretty much crushed Athenian democracy, thereafter Alexander of Macedon unified the Greeks anc went on to conquer most of the known world.

So yeah, Socrates was right. As usual. But that's democracy, you take the rough with the smooth.

 

[jverne]

Socrates spoke out against the Athenian invasion of Sicily, didnt stop the people from voting for it, and he was probably the one of the best orators in history.

Coincedentally, that invasion led to a crushing defeat, and an invasion from Sparta which pretty much crushed Athenian democracy, thereafter Alexander of Macedon unified the Greeks anc went on to conquer most of the known world.

So yeah, Socrates was right. As usual. But that's democracy, you take the rough with the smooth.

don't you think that the opposition (those FOR the invasion) had lot's of rethorics too!?

 

[Cons Himself]

yes, but thats democracy - you have two opposing points of view and the people voted on it. the point of democracy is that the majority arent always right, but at least they get a say.

 

[The Monkey]

oh, and yeah...Hitler wasn't chosen by the people, right?

He wasn't elected. Only 35% or something like that voted on him.

yes, but thats democracy - you have two opposing points of view and the people voted on it. the point of democracy is that the majority arent always right, but at least they get a say.

Two points of view?

 

[Cons Himself]

if you had bothered to actually read my little dialogue on here you would have realised I was talking about Democracy in Ancient Greece.

now who is the joke on?

Ps - un related point.

you live in possibly the most inclusive social democracy in the world, Sweden. what you complaining about - you have it good over there.

 

[Tr0n]

We all already know democracy is bullshit just like every other form of goverment.

 

[The Monkey]

if you had bothered to actually read my little dialogue on here you would have realised I was talking about Democracy in Ancient Greece.

now who is the joke on?

Ps - un related point.

you live in possibly the most inclusive social democracy in the world, Sweden. what you complaining about - you have it good over there.

Indeed you were, my humblest apologies.

And when was I complaining?

 

[jonbob]

I'd say Communism was the best form of government (note the capital C, it's important) but it simply won't work until the human race is smart enough to put aside personal wants.

Before the flaming starts, no country has even come close to true Communism yet. Not the PRC, not Russia, not Cuba, not Argentina, nowhere.

From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.

 

[Solaris]

"under a dictatorship you have a 50% of being on the right side (or you are with or you are against)!"


Are you thick??? Thats the stupidest thing ive seen all day.

 

[Lobotomy Lobster]

I'd say Communism was the best form of government (note the capital C, it's important) but it simply won't work until the human race is smart enough to put aside personal wants.

Before the flaming starts, no country has even come close to true Communism yet. Not the PRC, not Russia, not Cuba, not Argentina, nowhere.

From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.

The problem is, as you say, that no country has ever really got any further than semi socialist system. All the 'Communist' countries are actually fascist and always almost run by dictators, which goes against pretty much any socialist ideology.


The main problems with Democracy, as said by people earlier, is that even with a large majority, it fails to represent the nation as a whole. There always will be a small minority of people who will only be happy when they completly get their way, but most of the time it's a much larger preportion of the population that are being ignored. Preportional representation goes some way to alleviating that, but there is still plenty of room for improvement.

The other major failing with most 'Democracies' is that most of them aren't really very democratic. The people only have one chance to really speak their minds every 4-5 years when an election is called. This is normally pretty worthless anyway as far as real democracy goes, as many people don't actually vote, and most of the parties use propoganda, lies and sometimes downright sabotage in order to win, meaning that the final result is so skewed that it is anything but an accurate representation of the opinion of the general populace.

At any time other than the election, the goverment is pretty much the same old dictatorial model, albeit one that is careful not to upset the public too close to the next election.

 

[CptStern]

At any time other than the election, the goverment is pretty much the same old dictatorial model, albeit one that is careful not to upset the public too close to the next election.

hammer meet nail

nail meet hammer


good post :thumbs:

 

[Kebean PFC]

I'd say Communism was the best form of government (note the capital C, it's important) but it simply won't work until the human race is smart enough to put aside personal wants.

Before the flaming starts, no country has even come close to true Communism yet. Not the PRC, not Russia, not Cuba, not Argentina, nowhere.

From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.

I would disagree with you. There is nothing wrong with communsim, but it does not promote new technologies and better ways of doing things. Under Communism, you are a brian surgeon and get paid your meal and the food for you family of Three. I sweep the streets. I have 5 sons and 3 daughters. The govt, pays for my food and for that of my family. Is that fair? Why be a brain surgeon when you can sweep streets? Why do anything above and beyond when you are not rewarded for it?

 

[Cole]

Well Kebean as I do agree with what you are saying, I will lay this out for you.
If nobody ever swept the streets or picked up the garbage on the streets or anything..it would become a pretty dirty place.... Thus that makes the Street Sweeper just as important. He keeps the city clean and if you want a clean city you need him!

Now I don't believe Communist countries push in technology as much as more "Competitive systems".
I mean if you have 2 companies that are always trying to do one better than the next in order to make more money then there gonna co-evolution and get better and better and better.
It's like Amd vs Intel. They keep on making better processors than the other. Under a communist nation well..would there really even be big "Companies"? What is pushing you to find these new technologies?

 

[15357]

Well Kebean as I do agree with what you are saying, I will lay this out for you.
If nobody ever swept the streets or picked up the garbage on the streets or anything..it would become a pretty dirty place.... Thus that makes the Street Sweeper just as important. He keeps the city clean and if you want a clean city you need him!

Now I don't believe Communist countries push in technology as much as more "Competitive systems".
I mean if you have 2 companies that are always trying to do one better than the next in order to make more money then there gonna co-evolution and get better and better and better.
It's like Amd vs Intel. They keep on making better processors than the other. Under a communist nation well..would there really even be big "Companies"? What is pushing you to find these new technologies?

the guy behind you holding a gun.

your country.

 

[Farrowlesparrow]

True democracy is more like true communism. Everyone working for the greater good of mankind, without a need for leaders beyond organisers. You wouldn't have someone like a president at the top, because nobody would need to dictate policy. You'd have groups of people each tasked to figure out how to solve the problems we were facing, they would simply relay that to the people who had the knwoledge to fix it. Of course the simple fact of people looking out for themselves, something we're all guilty of, is why it doesn't and will never work.

Everyone's idea of communism has been tainted by what happened in Russia. That was not communism.

The idea is that everyone simply works to better and support mankind and they're happy with it.

 

[Lobotomy Lobster]

Now I don't believe Communist countries push in technology as much as more "Competitive systems".
I mean if you have 2 companies that are always trying to do one better than the next in order to make more money then there gonna co-evolution and get better and better and better.
It's like Amd vs Intel. They keep on making better processors than the other. Under a communist nation well..would there really even be big "Companies"? What is pushing you to find these new technologies?

I get your point, but I believe such a system could still be implemented to create good technological research. How about having goverment owned facilities, equipment and funds, then providing them to those the goverment (read: The people) deem best for the job. You would have the competition incentive, but it would be controlled, so foul play such as the type that happens in the current system could be eliminated, or at least reduced dramatically.

Besides, don't you think AMD and Intel could make better technology if they pooled their knowledge, rather than holding back their secrets from each other? I'm not so sure that the incentive of competition is the best one. It does drive people to work, but its real purpose is to drive people to succeed, and in capitalism, succeeding is about making money, not providing the best service. As a result, there is a lot of secret keeping, attempts to undermine the competition and corner cutting, which doesn't help progress at all.
Provided people have targets and are monitored to make sure they keep working at their targets so they don't get lazy, such a system would have all of the advantages with none of the disadvantages.

Also, I think the issue of technology rests on why people started research in the first place. Personally, I think they did it for something more meaningful than to simply make money (both the internet and the map of the human genome were released into the public domain, rather than patented and kept for profit purposes). People research new technologies to improve their lives and answer the big questions in life, not just to make a quick buck.

Under Communism, you are a brian surgeon and get paid your meal and the food for you family of Three. I sweep the streets. I have 5 sons and 3 daughters. The govt, pays for my food and for that of my family. Is that fair? Why be a brain surgeon when you can sweep streets? Why do anything above and beyond when you are not rewarded for it?

I think the problem here is that this is geared towards a Capitalist society. Surely, in an equal society, no-one would be forced to do a job such as street cleaning all their lives. It would probably be a lot better for people to all have a 'higher up' proffession such as a brain surgeon, and then every single citizen would do a certain amount of street cleaning each month. Then people would be equal not only in the amount of food etc provided to them, but also in their job satisfaction and importance to society.
Also, I think what drives a lot of people to be brain surgeons, doctors and other similar proffessions is that they want to. Some of the biggest money makers are corporate presidents, drugs barons and other people who give a questionable amount to society, yet most people don't strive to be like them.

Everyone's idea of communism has been tainted by what happened in Russia. That was not communism.

The idea is that everyone simply works to better and support mankind and they're happy with it.

Spot on, I couldn't agree more.

EDIT:: Sorry for the mega-post

 

[Cons Himself]

Perhaps if you were students of political economy like me you would realise not all models of capitalism are the same....

 

[iyfyoufhl]

The problem is, as you say, that no country has ever really got any further than semi socialist system. All the 'Communist' countries are actually fascist and always almost run by dictators, which goes against pretty much any socialist ideology.


.

i'd be careful with that word, i don't think you are right