New Religion of the 21st century is...

[Type941]

DEMOCRACY

I swear, I just listened to a part of Bush's speech, and he's been talking about Democracy (again.. :roll: ) and I can't help but notice the way democracy is used is so sad. It's pretty much become a way to achieve any geopolitical interest.

Look at :

Ukraine
Georgia
Lebanon
Azerbaidzhan
Iraq
[...]tzhikistans

It's become classic. Opposition loses election (regardless if they are noble intilegenstia, former criminals turned businessmen, nationalists, etc, etc) - they scream unDemocratic elections, scrap them, go on streets, demand change of government. they show on TV the same 30thousand people that supposedly speak for the whole country, and eveyrone's buying that. Meanwhile the 30thousands is getting 10 or 20 bucks a day from a NGO sponsored by something like "The American Endowment for Democracy" and such, but that's the story noone's supposed to be talking about in the news. :D

Yes, I think Democracy has lost so much of its true meaning, thanks to the US 'spreading' it in the ... well.. wherever really. It's an official new policy and a new crusade it seems. Still goes on as Bush is reading off his notes right now.

The reason I started writing this is I spoke again to my relatives who live in the Ukraine, Kiev. Yup, the Orange revolution and example of democracy. Their life got only worse since, the government is all corrupt and falling apart, yet it's hailed by Rice on her recent visit; The president of Ukraine wants to take it to NATO while polls show 60% of people strongly oppose that. Only 15% are for it. Orange 'death' and other phony revolutions, how much more of these will take place I wonder... Does anyone honestly think those revolutions are for real, for Democracy, or it's just a case of one political elite exploting the people and getting the money, while eclipsing the old elite?

Imo it's a good debate, but noone ever raised it once in the western media, except a few publications in FT, and I don't know how many regular folk read FT.

[bradclark1]

As someone pointed out sometime earlier there are no "Statesmen" anymore. Just politicians and most polticians are crooked nowadays. Its a grab for power and money and thats all that matters.
Yeah, I think gunboat politics have hurt democracy but also you can't go from bankrupt/corrupt communism to democracy without some major pain. The corrupt just change hats and keep on going. It's the people that have to force the change and thats a hell of a lot easier said then done.

[Kapitan]

im all for democracy but in democracy there is a thing called freedom of speech now if a country is not democratic then how can a democratic country go to war because they want that country to become a democray it infringes on freedom of speech and goes against the whole ideology does it not?

[U-552Erich-Topp]

:) Democracy????????? Here in Canada we no longer have democracy. The country is now socialist for the most part with the state making more rules and regulations every minute. Freedom of speech is very limited..........and big brother is watching everyones move.

[PeriscopeDepth]

Related reading:
http://www.harpers.org/BaghdadYearZero.html

PD

[CCIP]

You don't know how much I cringe each time I hear a politician use the word 'democracy' these days. :nope:

Having lived through 90's Russia, that word became an empty one for me long ago. And in the last 4 years, it's gone from being meaningless to being offensive, thanks to the way it's been used by you-know-who and his affiliates.

It's not that I've given up on all democratic principles per se, but it will take serious progress to restore my faith in that word and idea. Some will and have called me 'faithless', which I take no offense to. I'd rather be a skeptic than have faith in what I now see as empty words.

Oh, and I'll let a favorite Russian rocker of mine say the last word on democracy for me:

Есть в демократии что-то такое,
До чего неприятно касаться рукою
Хрипит перестройка в отвоеванных кухнях,
Ждет, когда и эта стабильность рухнет

There's something in democracy as such,
That just feels unpleasant to the touch
Perestroika in its' reacclaimed kitchen grumbles
Waits for the hour this stability crumbles :hmm:

[The Avon Lady]

Oh, and I'll let a favorite Russian rocker of mine say the last word on democracy for me:

Есть в демократии что-то такое,
До чего неприятно касаться рукою
Хрипит перестройка в отвоеванных кухнях,
Ждет, когда и эта стабильность рухнет

There's something in democracy as such,
That just feels unpleasant to the touch
Perestroika in its' reacclaimed kitchen grumbles
Waits for the hour this stability crumbles :hmm:
So what are the following stanzas, which I'm sure advocate a better solution? :hmm:

Democracy is a vague word. It's how it's incorporated into a nation's legal and political system that makes or breaks it.

"Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe... No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."
- Winston Churchill

[Kapitan]

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: i wonder :hmm: :hmm: :hmm: :hmm:

britian also has gone pear shapped some times im ashamed to admit im british or come from britain or even have any link to britian its not like the old days when we could all proudly hold our heads up and say were british like it or lump it.

(comes from living with grand pearents i think)

[TteFAboB]

Why do I think I'm repeating myself?

http://www.ruggedelegantliving.com/a/images/glass.half.full.jpg

It's hard to talk about Democracy in the country that fought to destroy it all over the world.

WAIT!

What did I just said?!

"all over the world"?

There is a world out there?!

Where?! WHERE?!

I'm with Avon Lady on this one, you can define Democracy and believe it to be whatever you want to, what matters is the result, not the semantics.

The Democratic Republic of Cuba
The Democratic Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela
The Democratic People's Republic of Korea
The Democratic Republic of Congo
etc. etc.

There is only one problem with Democracy in the ideology itself: In a Democracy there is always someone willing to destroy it, if you are not watching, if you are not guarding it, you loose it.

So, even if I have to repeat myself again, all it takes for Democracy to fail is the inaction of its defenders.

Now when Bush says President Lula is a "defender of democracy", a "moderate voice" and other gibberish I already forgot, you know his speeches can't be taken seriously, it was amazing, though, to watch the reaction of the anti-american-bush-hater members of the President's party and government to receive a compliment from George Bush himself, the man has style. :rock: :lol:

Now if you look at those countries who lost their Democracy and had to struggle to get it back, you see where the "faith" comes from, look at the elections in Chile, Pinochet offered a good economical life for those who kept their heads down (so good that today's Chile's [center]left-wing economical policy is the same), but Chileans are extremely enthusiast with their restored Democracy, perhaps they just want to have some fun in life instead of sitting in a dark room listening to emo-rock :rotfl:, like I said, it's not easy to keep it, you have to work for it.

[CCIP]

So what are the following stanzas, which I'm sure advocate a better solution? :hmm:

Nope, that's not that kind of song. They're just skeptics, like me :)

And only, and only the autumn rain in the window
Oh how much, you know, how much I am blessed with without [all this]

Personally, as I said, I'm not in any way against democracy in its original principle. Just like I'm not against, say, communism in its original principle. The difference is that democracy is a little bit more 'of this world'.

Otherwise, I'll steal yet another quote from that song.

Smart thoughts are better than great ideas
:hmm:

Otherwise, please. Show me actual democracy at work. I will say that it's not really democracy. There is no democracy, although thanks to the fact that the original idea is closer to reality than communism ever was, it works more closely to how it was advertised.

[The Avon Lady]

I'm with Avon Lady on this one, you can define Democracy and believe it to be whatever you want to, what matters is the result, not the semantics.
I didn't say that. While there's lots of subjectivity, flexibility and variations as to what constitutes democracy, you have to stand back and look at the big picture. For example:

The Democratic Republic of Cuba
The Democratic Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela
The Democratic People's Republic of Korea
The Democratic Republic of Congo
etc. etc.
How did you get to such conclusions? Because some democracy process was used at some point in time or for certain aspects of these governments? That's certainly is not my idea of a democracy anymore than dividing my younger children's candies evenly amongst them does not mean my household is run on a communist manifesto. :nope:
There is only one problem with Democracy in the ideology itself: In a Democracy there is always someone willing to destroy it, if you are not watching, if you are not guarding it, you loose it.

So, even if I have to repeat myself again, all it takes for Democracy to fail is the inaction of its defenders.
So true. There are certain checks and balances in place in most countries to protect this, such as laws against treason, elementary rights of freedom that cannot be revoked or only under certain conditions, etc.

But yes, democracy can be its own worst enemy.

[snowsub]

I'd also have thought that to have democracy as it was originally done (ancient Greece) would be out of the question.

Can you imagine voting for any and every little change is tax, laws etc etc. They didn't do it then and it definately wouldn't happen now.
Notice how 9 out of 10 referendums fail? Don't rock the boat/if it ain't broke don't fix it attitude

The problem is most people don't care about the way they're ruled as long as it doesn't infringe upon them. Democracy is just as good as a benevolent dictatorship.

In a true democracy everybody would and should vote (and actually vote legit, not donkey vote), but that never happens, and you get governments claiming legitimacy with 50-60% of the populace voting :roll:
People say you're infringing upon their right not to vote. But they'll complain if they don't like something. Forget the fact that they had a chance to voice they're opinoin via ballot :roll:
"It doesn't matter how I vote, the government does what it wants anyway, no-one listens to me..." Please....

Humans are Hypocrites!
Please one half and the other half complain, please both and they both complain.

I don't think there is a holy grail of government. Someone will still be upset.

I also don't think that the people Bush etc (western world) are trying to convert to democracy actually know what democracy means, we talk about it but never explain.
To me democracy is the ability to call the rulers into account. If one candidate says he'll fix roads/hospital/whatever and he doesn't do it or even get started, you kick him out via ballot and install someone else to do it.
democracy doesn't give you freedom, just the ability to exercise your opinion of the candidates involved.
no-one really has freedom, we all go to work etc and loose freedoms there, nothing would actually get done in a ultimately free world.

my 2c
Snowsub

[TteFAboB]

The Democratic Republic of Cuba
The Democratic Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela
The Democratic People's Republic of Korea
The Democratic Republic of Congo
etc. etc.
How did you get to such conclusions?

I found more:

The Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka
The People’s Democratic Republic of Algeria
The Lao People's Democratic Republic

I believe those are the names of the nations, I think China is the only big one without Democratic before the People's. I'm not sure if Cuba has it officially, but I was just pointing how Democracy can be a completely meaningless word, especially when it comes out of Fidel Castro's mouth, do you believe when he says Cuba is the most democratic nation in the world? Only if you buy his meaning of Democracy. I'm still with you.

CCIP, communisn and democracy can't walk hands together, you must believe in one or the other, if you are a Social Democrat, you are not a communist, and if you believe the Chinese Parliament is an example of democracy within communism, then you believe in the same Democracy Fidel Castro talks about, but if we stay on the philosophical realm, then we won't get anywhere, so to act, we must choose, please select: 1) Communism; 2) Democracy; 3) Other.

I believe many small groups used "smart thinking" in the name of "great ideals" or instead of "great ideals" to dwell communism in corruption and blood bath.

Otherwise, please. Show me actual democracy at work. I will say that it's not really democracy. There is no democracy...

If I stop here, without the last words, I'd think those words were coming from Hugo Chavez, did you ever thought about writing his speeches? Since you do not believe in democracy you wouldn't mind if the enviroment around you is democratic or not, would you?

[TteFAboB]

The problem is most people don't care about the way they're ruled as long as it doesn't infringe upon them. Democracy is just as good as a benevolent dictatorship.

Exactly, proven by history, however, Democracy and dictatorship are contraditory, no dictatorship can be benevolent if they remove basic democratic principles, that would be an illusion, pat you on the back with one hand, hit you in the face with the other, these types of benevolent dictatorships always crumble with time.

In a true democracy everybody would and should vote (and actually vote legit, not donkey vote), but that never happens, and you get governments claiming legitimacy with 50-60% of the populace voting :roll:
People say you're infringing upon their right not to vote. But they'll complain if they don't like something. Forget the fact that they had a chance to voice they're opinoin via ballot :roll:

Nobody should be forced to vote under ideal circumstances, that's against the whole idea of a democracy, you don't vote because you're forced to, you vote because you have come to a conclusion that it's the best thing to do, it's a duty to gain rights. Facultative vote is fantastic and should be applied whenever possible, when Brazil returned to Democracy mandatory vote was deemed necessary, today there's no more need for it, and in the future when the opportunity arises it will change, the fact is with mandatory votes you get a higher Null/White/Invalid votes instead of a lower turn out.

catch 22

Referendums are a form of direct democracy and can only be (correctly) applied on certain subjects, the general population is not ready to decide and vote in 1 month a highly technical and complicated decision, that's why when direct democracy is not possible, your representative votes for you, if you are not feeling represented by anybody, candidate yourself, if you believe in your country the political system is too complicated, change the system, we're doing it in Brazil, the lowest level of Democracy is the city hall congress, the current system is outdated, the new system will be something along the lines of direct democracy, where a congressmen can get to know his elector's e-mail if the elector chooses to reveal, so the politician will be able to e-mail his electoral base to ask about opinions and decisions on how to vote and receive critics he knows are from an elector, this type of system works very well at the base of the pyramid but it can also be used to decide at which level the politician should be elected according to the number of votes/electors he receives.

Please one half and the other half complain, please both and they both complain.

I don't think there is a holy grail of government. Someone will still be upset.

Of course not, like I said, there is always someone willing to destroy Democracy, there is someone willing to take over private property, there is someone willing to steal and kill you, a Democracy pleases the Majority, if the majority believes the holy grail form of government is Nazism, so be it.

To me democracy is the ability to call the rulers into account. If one candidate says he'll fix roads/hospital/whatever and he doesn't do it or even get started, you kick him out via ballot and install someone else to do it.

This is the best thing about Democracy, you vote communists into power, they fail miserably, they are voted out, not once again in history will communists gain power, a solid Democracy allows you to test parties and politician types, you'll never find the holy grail, never should, it doesn't exist, but you can try many different things, vote out the bad, vote in the good, vote out the good when they turn bad, and carry on, this is a virtue, not a problem.

democracy doesn't give you freedom, just the ability to exercise your opinion of the candidates involved.
no-one really has freedom, we all go to work etc and loose freedoms there, nothing would actually get done in a ultimately free world.

Anarchy, tried, tested and failed, however, in a Democracy you can live in Anarchy if you want, here we have many little anarchical communities, and in the US too, where you can live independently from the government and all of society, only paying for the land, as you are occupying the space someone could be using to work in a food factory providing food to thousands of hungry people. Try that in an Anarchical government (redundant) where the land you thought was yours is suddenly taken by a stronger group or in a communist regime where you actually don't have a choice to stop working and live in poverty, you are FORCED to live in poverty while working. :rotfl:

Freedom, as Democracy, have some level of relativity, if we simply accept Democracy and Freedom are lies and do not exist in reality, we'll just sit with our arms crossed and do nothing, boring, but if that's what you want, you are free to do so in a true Democracy.

[Catfish]

Hello,
Mao from the not-so-democratic People's republic of China claimed he
" ... had elections evely molning".
Greetings,
Catfish

[Hitman]

Democracy is the government of the majority. And because the majority are the stupids, those who lack culture and intelligence, while the intelligents and educated ones are the fewer, then the democracy is the government of the uneducated idiots. :down:

[joea]

Democracy is the government of the majority. And because the majority are the stupids, those who lack culture and intelligence, while the intelligents and educated ones are the fewer, then the democracy is the government of the uneducated idiots. :down:

Very elistist, you would advocate a return to monarchy?

What about Switzerland? A small country yes, but with an educated population, with a lot of division of powers between cantons, different language groups, even parties and socail groups. Anyway can launch a referendum on national or local questions if they collect 100 000 signatures ot something like that.

Anyway, Type941 is not the first person to say that, most of my RW friends from the ex-Soviet bloc have the same opinion, in large part because of the foreign actions of most (not just the US or UK) Western countries.

[joea]

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: i wonder :hmm: :hmm: :hmm: :hmm:

britian also has gone pear shapped some times im ashamed to admit im british or come from britain or even have any link to britian its not like the old days when we could all proudly hold our heads up and say were british like it or lump it.

(comes from living with grand pearents i think)

Wow, thought you wanted to join the RN mate? No need to be "ashamed," just critical and with an open mind. Errrr...if you do that you'll never be able to join the military, anywhere though. :hmm: :rotfl:

[TteFAboB]

Joea that statement does have an elitist taste, but only because he severely underestimates "those who lack culture and intelligence".

Who said "those who lack culture and intelligence" vote "uneducated idiots" into power? Who said "those who lack culture and intelligence" do not vote "uneducated idiots" off power?

The President of Brazil lacks culture, intelligence and is an uneducated idiot, what did I heard when I asked one of those "who lack culture and intelligence" about him?

"I believe we need someone more educated to rule the country."

According to pre-electoral polls, this bizzare uncultural dumb beast is not alone:

In the North-East region of the country, home of "those who lack culture and intelligence" 47% of the monsters would vote the uneducated idiot into power while 41% would vote for intelligence.

In the Center-West/North regions only 39% would vote the uneducated idiot into power while 48% would prefer a smarter candidate.

In the South-East region the uneducated idiot has 35% while reason gains more room with 43% of the votes.

In the South of the country, the uneducated idiot has only 30% of the votes while the educated Social Democrat Doctor gets 49% of the votes. Source is www.ibope.com.br

Elections are 10 months away, the uneducated idiot does not survive a debate and will only run for re-election because his party has NO other candidate worth of a campaign, if the uneducated idiot didn't run, his party would probably loose almost all of their few chairs in the parliaments, and who knows how many more city halls.

The people do not become wiser because they vote, but I don't classify them as stupid simply because they do the contrary to what I believe is right.

That was the spirit of Vargas's dictatorship, he believed in democracy as long as the people did the "right thing" and voted "appropriately".

Anyway, I believe the last referendum in Brazil proved the people can be far from silly, if you get that in a land swarming with "those who lack culture and intelligence", imagine what you can get in Spain.

Give the stupids a chance, last I heard the Spanish President was doing quite well except for the occasional corruption scandal linked to his party.

Correction: Prime-minister = President

[Type941]

Well, about socialism. If not overdone, or constrained, it's not too horrible, as the Nordic countries show.

I guess my point was difficult about listening to Bush speak about democracy, because he obviously uses the term politically only. And that destroys the meaning of it world wide these days. It's like a joke. Oh, let's give them democracy.... First of course, noone bothered to explain to people in Ukraine that it will take decades to bring the country back to Eu levels....

BUt that's another fun debate - should EU have more members... Recent Economist wrote that there might well be a referendum if they want any more countries... Tell that to Ukraine.

[CCIP]

I can live with socialism. I can live in a democracy, provided it's relatively centralized on the political spectrum, which means it's also partly socialist.

I guess I shouldn't be whining; what always troubles me is the curious lack of choice for people like me. Even if you look at Canada, there's absolutely no adequate representation for people of my interests. If there's anyone else here from Canada who shares my general leanings - I'm sure you would sympathise with the frustrations of someone who thinks of himself as left of centre, but doesn't like NDP, or any of those silly non-represented parties. Imagine how weary I am of our current election. :nope:

I probably would be best off in those European countries Type941 mentioned, unless, of course, it's just an illusion of someone at a distance. Is there any place where what you'd call 'rational socialism' is prevalent? :hmm:

[FERdeBOER]

Democracy is the government of the majority. And because the majority are the stupids, those who lack culture and intelligence, while the intelligents and educated ones are the fewer, then the democracy is the government of the uneducated idiots. :down:

:huh: :huh:

Maybe you preffer plutocracy?

One of the democracy biggest problems is that, usually, the people who doesn't vote are those who complains more. (I'm not saying that any of you are from this ones, is a generic expresion). ;)

In my opinion the democracy can't be imposed. The citizens have to desire it, and the less educated are the people, the less they apreciate it.
An example is Afganistan: how can you make people vote if most of the population can't read? Even more, if some days they can't eat?
That happens also with some asian and african countries.

Don't forget that Europe needed centuries of wars and monarchy (and tirany) to achieve step by step the democracy. Even today is not yet achieved completely.
So those third world countries are decades behind us (most of the times by our fault) and they need to walk the way by themselves. We can... we MUST help them, but not push them.

[snowsub]

TteFAboB

I think you've misunderstood me, I said poeple "would and should" vote, not that they have to (by force or whatever).
Though you're comments about higher null votes in a mandatory system is quite incorrect.
Australia (where I live) has mandatory voting and the estimated % of invalid votes is about 5-10% mark, but if there wasn't madatory voting here I'd bet you'd be lucky to see 50% voter turnout, so 40% still legitimately vote even though they may not want to vote given their own choice.

How does some people not liking a current governments ideas equate to wanting to destroy democracy?
basically I was refering to individual party alleginces , whether you are left or right, social of democrate, union of liberal leaning.
Take here in australia, roughly 40% each of the populace vote for either the Labor (Left) or Liberal (Right) Parties, with the remained voting Greens/Democrates/Impedendant condidates etc.
If you follow the Labor party you will not like what the Liberal party does, regardless of what it does (this is fact based upon actions taken by both sides, the unions (who control 60% of the Labor party: by that parties rules) hate (and yes I mean hate) what the Liberal party does and what it stands for and whatever they say or do it isn't good enough. Currently it's getting to the stage here where poeple are being blinded by their hate. Very sad :down:
And I'd have thought the same goes on with the Democrates/Republicans in the US

But back to the topic:
Again I think the problem with Bush etc going on and on about spreading Democracy is Moot if the intended recipients don't understand what democracy is/does and that's it's not some magical cure that will instantly right all wrongs and make the world a better place. Which seems to be what Bush etc are implying

[CCIP]

One of the democracy biggest problems is that, usually, the people who doesn't vote are those who complains more.

But have you ever wondered why some don't vote?

Unfortunately, the choices are sometimes pretty disheartening.

I know this all too well myself, since I'm about to vote for a party which I, at best, dislike - but consider the lesser of two evils.

Unfortunately, where there is no proportional representation, there is no way for the votes of anyone outside of the mainstream to really count. :(

[snowsub]

Is'nt that the reason for Preferencial voting system?
So the larger parties have to cosy up to smaller parties to ensure their preferences to get the larger party over the line?

That's how it works here (Aust), each party makes deals with the smaller parties to get their prefernces.

How it works (rough guide)
2 Main parties
Party A get 40% of the total vote
Party B gets 35% of the total vote
Minor Part A got 14%
Minor Party B got 5%
Minor Party C got 3%
Independents got 2%
-----
So the ballots then go to a 2 Party Prefered tally
Eg1: Party A got it's preferences from Minor Party A and Get's the majority vote +50%
Eg2: Party B got both Moinor Parties A & B votes and get over the line even though they got less in the 1st primary vote.
----
We have here a numerical voting, not 1 vote one count system.
ie: you have say 5 candidates for your electorate and you order them as you personally like from 1 to 5
Candidate A -
Candidate B -
Candidate C -
Candidate D -
Candidate E -

now you could have:
D - 1 or A - 1 etc
B - 2 or E - 2 etc
C - 3 or C - 3 etc
A - 4 or B - 4 etc
E - 5 or D - 5 etc

Now all parties have what we call "How to Vote" cards, just instruction asking party followers in which order they would like you to vote in, that's where preferences start, Party A sucks up to Minor Party B to have his party voted number 2 so when prefernces are counted they go to Party A.
Obviously people don't have to follow them, it's their choice.

So basically the larger party says we'll support one or more of your ideas if we get 1st voting preference.

Maybe this clears somethings
Maybe not lol

Snowsub

[Iceman]

From TYPE 941...Yes, I think Democracy has lost so much of its true meaning, thanks to the US 'spreading' it in the ... well.. wherever really.

IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen United States of America

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Ya talk like freedom and democracy are a virus lol.We get it ya don't like Bush.Hate the player in this case not the game. :) Freedom and Democracy are a pretty cool thing to have and personally I will fight for them both when they become threatened.I agree America or anyone should not force it's beliefs upon anyone but ya reach a crossroads in some cases when countries clash and collide with thier different systems...IE communisim or whatever and then it seems all people revert back to the instinct of survival...survival of ones way of life even.America seemed or perceived itself threatened from the "Evil" terrorists and I realize were sold the farm about alot of things but that's spilled milk now...I keep watching the reports from Afgan and Iraq and people being polled keep agreeing things are getting way better than they ever were before.... so....what up?

WTG Freedom and Democracy....even if US troops are given no credit for it....the end result is paying off.....we should re-visit this thread in yet another yr and see how far these two "New" Democracys have come.

It is not a magic wand that can be waved and I do resent how Bush sometimes likes to promote himself this way but dang....if ya think that going from a society that is not democratic to one that is happens smoothly then ya gotta have some issues personally.It cost thousands of Americans to win there freedom from the English...then lost thousands more fighting amongst ourselves in civil war....did I forget 1812 war too??? anyways crap Freedom and Democracy cost lives and takes hard azz work....seems like it always does.

[U-552Erich-Topp]

:) I agree with you CCIP as I to live in Ontario Canada. This federal election we are about to have is a farse. Also, Canada is far far far toooooooo political for the size of the country. We could cut out 1/2 of the politics and we would be better off. Let me see, the last time I watched the news, it was about politics and sports. That's it.

[CCIP]

Well, let's face it, Canadian politics in the last few years has just been a chain of scandals, and since the right united - two parties trying to throw dirt at each other. If even one of them stopped for a second and just focused on the political direction that they're supposed to be following, rather than constantly making up ploys in attempts to snatch power, I might have a different view. As it is, I'm left with either voting for the obviously-corrupt liberals, or rebelling and going for the silly NDP - which could just as well be a vote for the conservatives, since it'll help them more than anyone. And I honestly don't think I will never bring myself to vote right of centre. I'd have to get pretty desperate to go that route.

:zzz:

[joea]

Spoil your ballot as a protest, that might say something. Why don't you like the NDP btw?

[Type941]

Iceman - the americans that fought the british wanted to do it. Iraqi's apparently always need some 'helping' hand. I understand fine it takes many years for it to work if you haven't already read my previous post. However I think all 'democracy' experiments failed in principal that were installed thanks to Bush or US in the last decade - ones that people didn't want. Or it worked but only one way. Kosovo is perfect example. They stopped the clensing of muslims, and now there's clensing of serbs. What the f8ck did you achive is beyond me. I guess the Nato that bombed Kosovo is more satisfied with Muslims causing rampage and not the other way around. Effing double standards, as always. That will bite back some day. Always does.

I would also like to add something. That way of life you enjoy so much just might be a result of the current way the US behaves itself in the world, that it has to do what it does in order to sustain this way of life at home for you. Yes, you may not care, but your country does a lot of crap overseas so you live well. It's not impossible to imagine why some others who are suffering a bit for your sake might have a different view on democracy. Hypothetically speaking. ;)

[Hitman]

Very elistist, you would advocate a return to monarchy?

What about Switzerland? A small country yes, but with an educated population, with a lot of division of powers between cantons, different language groups, even parties and socail groups. Anyway can launch a referendum on national or local questions if they collect 100 000 signatures ot something like that.


If you mean "absolute Monarchy", this is just a form of government by a single person, similar to dictatorship except in the origin of the dictator.

The problem itself is not only the system (Democracy or dictatorship), but also the people who are called to apply it. I would have nothing against a dictatorship of a person that had such high and elevated human quality, intelligence and culture that could be called a "wise and just" man. But since it is probably easier to find one like this than trying to turn some million of low intelligent Q people into intelligenter ones, that's why I consider "real" democracy impracticable, and in any case, much more difficult to make real that a dictatorship by a "wise and just man". :hmm:

Switzerland is of course more advanced in culture and education, and could approach better the concept of real democracy, but you can't pretend them neither to have a majority of intelligent people. The political parties screw it all up, and even on a country like the USA, which created what was probably the "perfect" democracy in their foundation, failed to prevent the political parties to take control of who and how could ever become president of the nation. Not to mention that anyone without some million dollars on his back can even try it, that is.


Who said "those who lack culture and intelligence" vote "uneducated idiots" into power? Who said "those who lack culture and intelligence" do not vote "uneducated idiots" off power?

Who ever said that the ones in the power are uneducated idiots? They are many times more intelligent than the poor idiots that vote them, that's how they are capable of foolishing them. Sometimes it is not a matter of being intelligent, but simply have an ability for lying convincingly. At least, convincingly enough for anyone not interested in checking out the truth of what is being said.

You know, what I can't stand is to see that I live in a country where the most viewed program on TV is "Big brother", the ratio of school studies failiure is one of the highest in the EU, and everyone has an opinion about how good or real our democracy is, despite not having even read our Constitution, (We are also a country were less books are read per year and citizen, and considering that I read about 25-30 books per year, go figure what others do to produce this statistic result :stare: ) and THAT majority decides who will govern ME. Just 15 minutes ago I watched on TV a public demonstartion against the recent law for reformation of the scholar system in Spain, where some thousands of students where crying in the street against it. Guess what? The two or three demonstrators interviewed by the commentator made statements that PROOVED that they had not even READ the text of the law project they were demonstrating against!!! Geeeezzz...and those are the majority, the majority that votes and decides who will govern ME :damn:

[TteFAboB]

snowsub,

I think I misunderstood you then, but my comments are not incorrect, those who do not want to vote, but have to vote because of law, will vote Null/White/Invalid anyway, your statistic of Australia's abstention rate is similar to Brazil, and many other countries spread across the globe, I do not advocate facultative voting would have higher turn out universally, I only stated my preference for this option.

Your comment on the bi-party segregation in Australia is not a phenomenon limited to that country, it's part of the political spectrum and in no way isolated to Democratic governments, that's what you get when ideology comes first and the needs of the nation second, a benevolent dictatorship would solve the problem by dissolving both parties.

Type941,

I would like you to prove your statement when you say Bush does what he does to keep Iceman living happy at home, if you payed more attention, you'd see Bush has only made his life worse, much worse, and the next administration will have quite some work on their hands to set things straight again, now don't get me wrong, the current government is doing a great job on some fields, it's just that what it does wrong in the others tend to tilt the overall result.

Hitman,

Yes, you are an elitist, good grief, you can live freely in a Democracy as one, you are not in Czarist Russia, you are not living under Franco (did you already thanked him for letting Spain lag behind the rest of Europe?), you can go on a socialist enlightening crusade to explain to the population what they should watch on TV, what they should read and where and why should they protest. Lennin did it, don't give up.

[TteFAboB]

Is there any place where what you'd call 'rational socialism' is prevalent?

I need help to answer that one, even if I don't know your pre-requisites, I'll try anyway:

If you want a place where private property of the means of production is still present but controlled by the state, you have France, needless to comment on this fantastic country, ~400 types of cheese that exist not because they are any good or needed, but simply because the government pays for their production. However, France is still a democracy.

If you want something more classic, where private property is completely abolished and the labor force is distributed rationally you can try Cuba, Doctors also work as waiters and there are only two social classes, the people and the members of the party, I recommend joining the party.

My personal choice would be China, the country of the future, a land of opportunities, the only problem is the cultural difference, you'll have to learn to live on the floor, but with more than 2000 representatives it is impossible you don't find anyone who shares your interests.

But if all of these feel too much "of this world", and you'd like something more exotic, I'd suggest looking at Chad, though it is not the ultimate socialist nation, you can enjoy a simple life without any interference from the external world and do as you please while the government uses Oil to rationalize development.

If you gave a serious thought about these, I suppose Canada suddenly doesn't look that bad does it? Just sit tight and wait for the Quebec revolution.

[joea]

Is there any place where what you'd call 'rational socialism' is prevalent?

If you want a place where private property of the means of production is still present but controlled by the state, you have France, needless to comment on this fantastic country, ~400 types of cheese that exist not because they are any good or needed, but simply because the government pays for their production. However, France is still a democracy.


If you gave a serious thought about these, I suppose Canada suddenly doesn't look that bad does it? Just sit tight and wait for the Quebec revolution.

Point of order, 400 types of cheese because in the old days every villiage made its own style of cheese and travel etc. didn't exist to the extent today.

I thought Quebec had its revolution in the 1960s. :zzz: Boring Canadian story that.

[CCIP]

Spoil your ballot as a protest, that might say something. Why don't you like the NDP btw?

Well, I support quite a few of their policies, and if only they were more popular - I would really have no doubts as to who to vote for, since of they're the closest to my interests and, more crucially, they seem to support proportional representation.

What turns me off them, and many social democrat / socialist platforms in general, is their take on the welfare state and a little bit too much support for labour unions. Not that I'm against them per se - but taken too far, these seem to hurt the general situation in the country, and I'm pretty dissatisfied even with the current welfare state. It's a matter of management and a matter of the system being prone to abuse, and so far as I can see - the NDP would only extend it rather than remodeling it. To put it simply, I think Canada is wasting a lot of resources - be they government cash or available labour; and so far as I see, the NDP might only extend this problem.

I could potentially support the Green party, but I find them even more silly, unrealistic, and more importantly - often rather unreasonable. Something of a hybrid between the NDP, the Liberals and the Green party would probably be the right spot for me.

***

As far as rational socialism - I'm not naive enough to try and support the elimination of private property and so on and so forth. That just won't happen. What I would like to see is a more even, more content society in a realistic framework. We all know perfectly well that trying to level a society out completely can't work because people are greedy. We know perfectly well that we can't take out this greed factor without severely damaging the economy and/or personal freedoms. But I'd at least like to see institutional means to limit this greed to reasonable levels.

It's a fact that capitalism has been the engine of Western development in the last 200 or so years. But at this point, I'm personally concerned that consumerism is becoming the engine of its destruction. Thus my fervent opposition to the conservative agenda and anything right-of-centre. I'm willing to put aside my personal prosperity for a reasonable existence, along with a few of the more irresponsible personal freedoms in favour of a more level and sustainable society.

I guess you could call me a moderate hippie or something :|\

[Type941]

TteFAboB, that's a nice way of going at someone - prove it! Prove me dinasaurs died because of a ball of fire.


Look, when I say Bush is working for the good of his country and so that Iceman can live ok, it's not a specific example, but the overall policy. USA cannot sustain itself without expanding into areas of the world that it calls its own areas of 'interest'. Those areas include the oil rich reserves in the east, as well as the former soviet union republics. It needs to expand, it needs to force the countries to trade with it, take loans from it, and depend on it in every way possible. It's expanding, because if it stops, it might just collapse in a spectacular fashion. If Bush doesn't keep waving the war stick in anyone's face who disagrees with him, he'd be stuck with the 'local' problems. WHich are: disaster in social security, and enormous CA defecits. Huge dependency on foreign capital. Consumers who spend everything and save nothing. The whole country operates on US exploiting many areas around the world, and Bush is doing a decent job in that. It's not 'bad'. It's just good for the US, and that's why it's puzzling when the US starts to tell countries what to do - while all those countries want is the same thing US is doing - i.e. doing right for itself. Double standards, like I said. But than again, what can Iceman understand about people living in Iraq and their suffering? The whole war was to let off the steam Iceman and many american have had after 9/11. now it's not so nice. But Bush is doing what's best for his country and trying to make sure it doesn't collapse. It has to expand, like every other empire in the history. Once expansion stops - it's curtains. But in modern world expansion is not even so much territorial in normal sense, but in these areas of influence. The US doesn't need to make 'wars' to conquer territory. All it needs is a bunch of organizations such as the 'Endowment for Democracy' that will finance the oppositions in hostile government, and once the political technology of 'color' revolutions take place, it can enjoy a loyal government like the one in Georgia. Their present said recently - we are the most pro-american nation in the world. What self respecting national leader would say that? .. But you say 'so what if he likes the us'. Well, here's the thing - now that he is pro-american, the US will use him to work against it's enemies in the region. Like I'm sure Iraq will be used at some stage against Iran...

[TteFAboB]

prove it! Prove me dinasaurs died because of a ball of fire

Sorry Type941, I do not belive in that, to me Dinossaurs were abducted by the Flying Spaghetti Monster and transformed into space-Pizza meatballs, quite tasty if you ask me, but jokes aside there are other theories floating around, in a Democracy there is room for every single one of them: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/02/0222_020222_dinodust.html

Now I may not be nice, but that's because I do not accept merrily for someone to bash the thing that allows me to be the person I am and have the opinions I have, I may not be here to earn the nice-guy cookie, I have much more fun doing quite the contrary, but I value this thing that allows me to disagree with the mainstream, like you, and survive, there are places where you'd get shot for disagreeing with the mainstream, you know, or not, regardless, I ask you not to take for granted the possibility of disagreeing, if you have it.

I still believe you are wrong in your economical analysis and I think you have a completely biased view on the political part though in this case I belive we differ only in interpretation, do not take that as something negative, I am one of the only persons on this board who isn't anti-american.

Still, I thank you for sharing a more detailed comment, even if ideology separates us on this issue, and I can tell you why I disagree if so you want, you have your honest reasoning to believe in what you believe, even if dinossaurs weren't extinct by a big ball of fire, afterall, who knows the truth.

[snowsub]

snowsub,

I think I misunderstood you then, but my comments are not incorrect, those who do not want to vote, but have to vote because of law, will vote Null/White/Invalid anyway, your statistic of Australia's abstention rate is similar to Brazil, and many other countries spread across the globe, I do not advocate facultative voting would have higher turn out universally, I only stated my preference for this option.

Your comment on the bi-party segregation in Australia is not a phenomenon limited to that country, it's part of the political spectrum and in no way isolated to Democratic governments, that's what you get when ideology comes first and the needs of the nation second, a benevolent dictatorship would solve the problem by dissolving both parties.



NP TteFAboB

The description I did about preference voting was more for CCIP about him not feeling his vote counted, and how that can be achieved via preferences

[TteFAboB]

Ah yes, let's get back to CCIP.

CCIP, how hard is it to engage in direct conversation with you? I have baited and lured you more than once, I need a bigger hook, from the tone of your posts you are not only a skeptical, you sound melancholic.

When starting to deal with politics I had to ask myself questions along these lines:

Am I in a position of power or influence to change what I believe is wrong?

Can I do anything to fix it?

If you answer no to both questions, then there's no reason to get depressed about it, there's no reason to get depressed regardless actually, melancholy should be used as a driving force to create, to construct, not to be skeptical, if you pardom my not-so-nice style.

"Why does every exceptional man when concerned with philosophy, the science of state, poetry or other arts are so expressively melancholic?" says Aristotle, 4BC. Victor Hugo agrees, so does Denis Diderot, Robert Burton (The anathomy of Melancholy, 1621)", Franz Kafka, Yves Bonnefoy, etc. etc. etc.

In the last month, in the Grand Palais museum in Paris, historian Jean Clair opened an exhibition about melancholy, do it like these great artists and use it for your own good.

Why don't you start your own blog to vent your frustrations, think, and whatnot?

Anway, for a more detailed traveller's look into socialist experiments of the past, check out "Utopias Elsewhere", 1991 by Anthony Daniels.

[Type941]

About the economy, being a finance major and an mba graduate, I have a pretty strong view on the US economy and how much closer to a possible collapse it is. I'm not talking recession 29, but there are a couple of bubbles left that will burst. The dotcom bubble would be peanuts when the dollar bubble collapses for example. 2006 just might be a year for that in fact, though unlikely. On opposite, it might be a year when the Euro collapses. It's all possible. We'll have to see how the EU budget goes through voting, and how the situation in Italy develops (they benefit from getting rid of the Euro).

[TteFAboB]

Strong, as in, asking for the destiny to happen as you wish?

You search for observations to confirm your pre-conceived ideas or you conceive your ideas out of your observations?

The apocalypse hidden in your prayers do tend to make things a little obscure. :)

[Type941]

don't put words in my mouth man, what i say isn't new, it's been said many many times. And one more thing - don't put me into anti-american camp. I don't like the administration, but I love the country. I lived and worked there for few years, and I like the people and the life there. IT's what this country does abroad pisses me off because it's a policy of a big bully with double standards, nothing else. My american friends agreed with me on that, but I guess it's the crowd you have around you that you can judge on. These friends know geography quite well as well, and aren't fat. :know:

[The Avon Lady]

These friends know geography quite well as well, and aren't fat. :know:
Don't sound very American to me!

:rotfl:

[TteFAboB]

Type941 I have Machiavellically placed us on the same boat, now you know exactly how I feel.

For not being "anti-american" enough (which is the real new religion of the 21st century), I receive a myriad of cute labels. I just came up with this fantastic analogy, you'll like it, do you remember the first 3D glasses? Those that had one lense of each color and only by seeing through both lenses you could get the true 3D perspective?
http://www.assistpoint.co.uk/Images/3D_Glasses/3d_glasses_red_cyan_lenses_with_arms.jpg

What happens when one of the lenses is missing, or you deliberatly look only through one?

That's what the ideological debate has turned into, people bash Democracy by focusing on its failures, every single time, how can you ditch a system only by what you see of negative in it?

Given the alternatives, the big bully foreign policy can also be a paper tiger, but that's a topic for another thread, which I should start some time in the future, and you'll be welcome to join.

[Hitman]

Hitman,

Yes, you are an elitist, good grief, you can live freely in a Democracy as one, you are not in Czarist Russia, you are not living under Franco (did you already thanked him for letting Spain lag behind the rest of Europe?), you can go on a socialist enlightening crusade to explain to the population what they should watch on TV, what they should read and where and why should they protest. Lennin did it, don't give up.

Well if I had to thank Franco for something (Which I don't) it would probably be for not throwing Spain into WW2 (Unlike Hitler & Mussolini), or for finishing a republic in Spain that leaded us to disaster, but that's another matter.

And no, I'm not going into any enlightning crusade to explain to the population what they should watch on TV, what they should read and where and why should they protest. In fact, they certainly deserve what they are/get, and I don't have the intention to move a single finger to prevent them from being what they are. That's their decission (So I respect it despite not agreeing with it, even if for rational reasons) the only problem for me is me being affected by the decissions of such an amount of uneducated idiots. My decissions do not affect them (I do not vote), but theirs do affect me. :damn:

[TteFAboB]

Indeed, Spain suffered enough in the Civil War, it did not needed yet another steamroll if D-day happened on its beaches.

What is your situation? Do you live in Catalunya? Asturias? Any region with desire for independence? Welcome to the club then, but in my case there are more advantages to remain in the federation and fix it than separating, we need a new pact to correct disparities and change some abominations, not hard to do, the next adminisration should be able to do it, if not, then the one after that.

[Hitman]

Do you live in Catalunya?

Yes I currently live in Catalonia for job reasons, but I am from Valencia. We valencians have lots of problems with the catalonian politicians (Not with the catalonian people generally) because they want to absorb us into their "Independent big catalonia", which is not exactly what many of us want ;) There is also a big discussion about the language, the catalonians claim we speak a dialect of theirs, many people in valencia think we speak a different language.

I would consider myself lucky enough if people in my surroundings would think a bit about what they see and hear instead of believing everything their favourite party says, be it logical or not :down:

I have no desires for independence, in fact I have never felt much spaniard, valencian or anything at all, I was educated to speak many languages (Can speak english, german, spanish, valencianish and understand to a certain degree french, italian and latin), learn many different cultures, and I have travelled a lot a lot, so I feel more like a citizen of the world and consider usually nationalisms and localisms an anachronism, a culture of voluntary separation and discrimination from others I don't agree with. :nope:

[Iceman]

I hear ya Type941.... :)

But hey... what do I understand anyways....
But than again, what can Iceman understand about people living in Iraq and their suffering?

Yea...I don't have to live in Iraq or Kosovo or on the moon to understand corruption,evil, and death.....It's all Cain and Abel baby.Tell me the difference in the mother who watched her son blown apart in a roadside bomb and the son in Mesa Az yesterday who woke up and found out his mother was shot and killed at a bus stop coming home from work.

It's all Fubar.You guys crack me up I swear going on and on about stuff and still can't see the end results of all this.

It is Death.

For the recored what keeps Iceman happy and the wifie happy is the last 3 weeks working 60 hrs and banking that OT so I can now enjoy the next 2 1/2 weeks paid vacation enjoying the ..."Holidays" lol...with my kids.

Merry Christmas.

[Hitman]

so I can now enjoy the next 2 1/2 weeks paid vacation enjoying the ..."Holidays" lol...with my kids.


Indeed the only common point for all religions and philosophical doctrines is that giving your love and care to your family plus enjoying their presence is good, noble, and respectable. :up:

[CCIP]

When starting to deal with politics I had to ask myself questions along these lines:

Am I in a position of power or influence to change what I believe is wrong?

Can I do anything to fix it?

If you answer no to both questions, then there's no reason to get depressed about it, there's no reason to get depressed regardless actually, melancholy should be used as a driving force to create, to construct, not to be skeptical, if you pardom my not-so-nice style.

I think you're right to an extent - I am indeed somewhat melancholic when it comes to political life, although I think you're underestimating the consequences that has on me in general.

Just because I don't have strong political values, it doesn't mean I don't have strong personal values. I see it as a sort of tradeoff. Quite contrary to making me depressed, my inherent distrust in great social ideals strengthens my personal ideals in how I treat individual people. I'm not really made for functioning on a highly public level, to be perfectly blunt. Examining those values, I come to the conclusion that a more left-wing, 'rational socialist' political agenda would probably help me live by those values.

Yes, I am reluctant to engage in personal discussion on these subjects, as you rightly noted. Because I don't really want to invest a lot of personal sentiment into something I inherently distrust - nor do I want to seem hostile or offensive to others.

In fact, and I think I noted this in a few threads, I've almost made a pact with myself not to engage in political discussions. This is not to say I'm closed-minded. My observation is that these discussions just fuel nerves and result in often-unneccesary frustrations.

Unfortunately, it seems that I've failed to keep that up. Ah well. :88)

[TteFAboB]

Gotcha ;)

Don't worry, it's an honor to be dragged into the horrible debate of doom by me, after I got Skybird. :P :lol:

I hope I didn't gave you the impression I was judging you as a depressed fellow, I couldn't do that even if I wanted to, text-based forums are tough to interpret, there's no voice tone, well, there's no voice at all, there's no real face expressions, there's no body posture, there's no eye-to-eye contact, no way to count how many times one blinks, sweats, etc. etc.. I guess this is one of the reasons, only one, of why forum discussions can lead to unnecessary frustrations, they are far too abstract, there's little trace of humans in them, especially on the posters with poor literate value, like mine to name one.

I guess my chances of exploring what you call "rational socialism" aren't very high, I know you certainly don't mean "classic" socialism, not much rationality there, it's probably something ahead of the 19th century and something that doesn't destroy the individual, seeing as you value yourself as an individual first, that's a tough one, Rousseau or Kant? A mix of both, I suppose, if you ever want to elaborate or think about it, we can start another thread, or not, but it could be fun, or it could be dull, boring and useless, well, if you ever want to let the wind blow, throw it my way, I don't get to speak with intelligent life on that realm too often.