In search of european democracy

[Skybird]

Found this in the Brussel Journal, but it was originally published in the Washington times three days ago. Although written from an American perspective, as a European I found it to be some interesting thinking, and I am far from opposing anything that is said. As a matter of fact I tend to express more agreeing than rejecting from my side.

Is the European Union a democracy? The Europeans and most others will argue yes, but there are many different degrees of democracy. Many Europeans increasingly feel powerless when it comes to their national government and particularly that of the EU, and for good reason. Despite the fact that many of the nations of Europe are much older than the U.S., all of their democracies are much younger (with the partial exception of Switzerland), most have only been real democracies for the last several decades, and even less for the former communist states.
Many of the European countries have moved from a monarchal authoritarianism to a socialist authoritarianism, without really building democratic institutions to protect the individual from the government, like those that exist in the U.S. and Switzerland.
When a small group meets and votes for its leaders and almost all issues of importance, we call that process “direct democracy.” America had such a system in many towns, the most famous were the New England town meetings. In these towns, the citizens came together to make many of the decisions as to how they would be governed, including how they would be taxed and how the money would be spent. Most countries, including the U.S., now have “representative democracies,” whereby people elect “representatives” to voice their views in various legislative bodies.
Where the citizens know and can directly interact with their representatives, and the representatives fear they will lose their positions if they do not reflect the will of the local majority, the process tends to work reasonably well.
Many of the major European countries have developed a top down political system rather than a bottom up one. Top down is a system where a small group of political elites decides what it thinks is best for the people. France is a prime example. Most of the French political leaders went to the same, very small, elite school in Paris (http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/929) and developed a very tight “old boy network,” hence the left-leaning and so-called right-leaning leaders are all fans of “big government” where they have control. The parliamentarians are all very firmly controlled by the party leaders; hence, unlike the U.S., dissenting votes are rare.
In the U.S. Congress, the leaders are forever negotiating with their own party members, attempting to create voting majorities. Most members of the U.S. House and Senate have their primary allegiance to their own voters rather than to their party or its leadership.
In Europe, it is quite the opposite. The rank and file members of the parliaments owe their primary allegiance to their party leaders, because if they dissent, they will be kicked off the list of who can “stand” (i.e., represent) the party in a given district. As a result, elected representatives tend not to make themselves readily available directly to their constituents as is done in the U.S.
The British Conservative party leader David Cameron has just announced that the party will not push for tax cuts in the next election. The Thatcherite wing of the party is outraged and believes it to be both bad economics (which it is) and bad politics; but because of central party control, virtually all of the Conservative candidates standing for the next election will have to buy into the no tax cut position in order to be selected to run.
Another factor leading to non-democratic centralism in Europe is that public-owned and -influenced TV is much more dominant in Europe than in the U.S. As would be expected, the journalists in the public-owned TV stations tend to favor big government (which is natural since that is where they get their salary checks). The most famous and notorious public-owned broadcasting entity is the BBC. The BBC has several TV networks in Britain and is rapidly expanding throughout the world, including the U.S., because it has a direct source of revenue; that is, a very hefty mandatory tax on each TV set in Britain. The BBC is also greatly expanding its local news coverage, attempting to crowd out local newspapers. The BBC editorial and news positions are consistently hostile to those who favor limited government and lower taxes.
Thus, the free market democratic forces in Britain, as well as other European countries, are at a double disadvantage in that they need to fight the big state centralism, which can dole out favors from the public purse, and they are constantly attacked by the state-owned or -influenced media. Given that neither the political elite nor the media really like democracy, it and its necessary conditions are steadily being undermined in Europe. This democratic deficit has led to (or is a result of) excess statism which, in turn, has destroyed much of the economic vitality of the continent.
The one bright spot is the recent rise of limited government, free market activist groups, such as the TaxPayers' Alliance in Britain, and Liberté Chérie (http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/639) (i.e., cherished liberty) in France. These groups are led by intelligent and highly-motivated young professionals who understand the need for fundamental change and are willing to fight for it.

[XabbaRus]

European democracy an oxymoron if I have ever seen one.


I agree and in the UK it seems with New Labour and tony Blair we are inching down the path towards a police state.

[Onkel Neal]

Very interesting article...

[Kurushio]

...yeah, and very accurate. I'm a citizen and resident of two European countries...so I vote in both. UK and Italy. The just over ten years I've been allowed to vote in both countries, I don't think I've ever voted without fouling the ballot...but not because I'm a vandal, because I thought my vote would count for nothing.

In Britain, you vote Tory and you get some rich bastards who do everything for the upper class community in total detriment to normal people. You know how it works...they give tax breaks for people who own second, third, fourth homes...tax breaks for luxury cars etc etc. Vote Labour and you get NEW Labour, which are pretty much like the Torys. Seeing there are only 2 political parties...what's the point of voting, considering they are both identical.

Italy is the complete opposite...5 million parties, and all they think about is lining their pocket. Biggest thieves and corrupt bastards you'll ever find. Only reason Berlusconi became Prime Minister was to escape a jail term for embezzlement. Can you believe that once you become Italian Prime Minister you can never be put in jail for any crime...ever. You can be put in front of a jury, found guilty but not convicted. Andreotti (Italian Prime Minister for many years) was found guilty of conspiring to blow up a train with the mafia and the murder of 8 people. He was found guilty by a jury, but left court a free man. :lol: What a joke...that's why I always write "EFF OFF" on the Italian ballot papers.

Thirdly...the EU is VERY unpopular in Europe. Nobody wants it. The EU constitution was rejected in 2 countries. You'd think this would mean they would scrap the idea? No, they'll try to implement it through the back door, even though it's supposed to be up to us if we want an EU constitution or not. The EU is not wanted, yet forced upon us...how nice. :damn:

Yes...the article is spot on.

[Skybird]

Our parties are the death of democracy over here. They put their own interests over there duty to represent those that voted them to represent their will. If this means active ignoration of their voters, so be it.

A nice supplemental reading that was published first on 4th of July last year is this:
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/32

And while Kurushio mentioned the EU constitution on which the majority of european people is about to become betrayed, I fear:
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/1125

when I was still at school, the idea of a united europe fascinated me. But somwhere during the mid-90s, they seriously messed it up. The currency union maybe could be seen as the turning point for worse. Thinking of the EU today makes me want to vomit all day long.

Helmut Schmidt, a very clever and intelligent statesman, maybe the only one you can find in Germany, was one of the driving forces behind the unification of europe. But he says since years that it derailed, or is in danger to do so. He also says that he cannot recognize the original ideas and intention in this centralistic monster that had been created now. He thinks that the EU has greater chances now to brake up again, then to survive. He also admits that the immigration policies of europe and Germany in special were a very big mistake, and he even once apologized that during his chancelorship (in which he successfully managed to solve oh so many crisis) he did not realize that and thus helped to protect it. He accepeted full responsebility for that mistake. He is the only one who ever questioned this aspect of German policies that uncompromisingly and without trying to clean himself of any guilt.

[Kurushio]

Agree with you Skybird. Here's an interesting fact. Romano Prodi (current Italian Prime Minister) was selected by the EU to form the EU parliament in it's infancy. Now this Prodi is one of the biggest theives out there. He was Prime Minister a few years back prior to this stretch and the things he did were absurd, apart from corrupt. He even got involved in petty regional squabling. This guy if from Reggio Emilia and they hate people from a neighbouring town called Parma. That's where the cheese Parmigiano-Reggiano gets it's name from. Now this bastard wanted to make it so that only cheese coming from Reggio Emilia was to be officially recognised as Parmesan...how petty is that? :lol: You're Prime Minister and you get involved in cheese? LOL...what a stupid wanker!!!

See why the EU is messed up? Because it's based on people like this. :yep:

[STEED]

and in the UK it seems with New Labour and tony Blair we are inching down the path towards a police state.

We are now living in a police state as of 1st Jan 2006.


Police gain greater arrest powers
Sun Jan 1, 2006 9:34 AM GMT

LONDON (Reuters) - Police will be able to arrest anyone for any criminal offence, including minor misdemeanours such as dropping litter, under new laws which come into force on Sunday.
Until now police have had the power to arrest only those suspected of committing an offence carrying a sentence of at least five years in prison.
The new law requires only that the police have reasonable grounds for believing that a person's arrest is necessary. This can include a suspect's refusal to give their name and address.
The changes are part of the Serious and Organised Crime Act 2005, which removes the distinction between "arrestable" and "non-arrestable" offences.
Offences that have until now been non-arrestable include impersonating a police officer, not stopping a vehicle when ordered to do so and making or selling an offensive weapon.
Police will in future be allowed to photograph suspects on the street where they have been arrested or issued with a fixed penalty notice, rather than back at a police station.
"The introduction of a single rationalised power of arrest simplifies arrest powers," said Home Office minister Hazel Blears.
"These tough new powers make a significant contribution to creating a modern, efficient police service equipping frontline officers with the tools they need to fight modern crime effectively and keep our neighbourhoods safe."


© Reuters 2006. All Rights Reserved.

[scandium]

I love articles like this where the author makes all kinds of assertions without backing any of them up.

Is the European Union a democracy? The Europeans and most others will argue yes, but there are many different degrees of democracy. Many Europeans increasingly feel powerless when it comes to their national government and particularly that of the EU, and for good reason. And the reason is?

Despite the fact that many of the nations of Europe are much older than the U.S., all of their democracies are much younger (with the partial exception of Switzerland), most have only been real democracies for the last several decades, and even less for the former communist states. What does this have to do with whether the EU is a democracy? Nothing. Following the above paragraph, about the "different degrees of democracy", the author implies (without any evidence) that the degree of a country's democracy is directly related to how long its been democratic. Aside from the fact that these two aspects of democracy are not directly related, one could also argue that newer democracies have the edge in being able to implement improvements that weren't known at the time of the older democracies.

Many of the European countries have moved from a monarchal authoritarianism to a socialist authoritarianism, without really building democratic institutions to protect the individual from the government, like those that exist in the U.S. and Switzerland. Nice blanket statement. Which European countries? No examples are given. Which institutions in the U.S. and Switzerland? The auther doesn't bother give a single example.

When a small group meets and votes for its leaders and almost all issues of importance, we call that process “direct democracy.” America had such a system in many towns, the most famous were the New England town meetings. In these towns, the citizens came together to make many of the decisions as to how they would be governed, including how they would be taxed and how the money would be spent. And this is significant because?

Most countries, including the U.S., now have “representative democracies,” whereby people elect “representatives” to voice their views in various legislative bodies. Could this sentence indicate that there is some meat to follow?

Where the citizens know and can directly interact with their representatives, and the representatives fear they will lose their positions if they do not reflect the will of the local majority, the process tends to work reasonably well.
You don't say? Beyond the hypothetical, is this how it is actually working? We don't know because the author doesn't bother to move from the hypothetical to the factual.

Many of the major European countries have developed a top down political system rather than a bottom up one. Top down is a system where a small group of political elites decides what it thinks is best for the people. France is a prime example. Most of the French political leaders went to the same, very small, elite school in Paris (http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/929) and developed a very tight “old boy network,” hence the left-leaning and so-called right-leaning leaders are all fans of “big government” where they have control.
That is simply asinine. Whether government is big or small, in France or in the US, those in government are "in control" because they are in government - duh!

The parliamentarians are all very firmly controlled by the party leaders; hence, unlike the U.S., dissenting votes are rare.
And the US party leaders have no control over there parties? Asinine. As to the "dissenting votes", have the Democrats in the US (the minority party) won so many legislative debates in Congress on a majority gained from Republican dissenting votes? No, they haven't. Furthermore, just as in "top-down" France the US Congress is setting its legislative priorities based upon those set down by the President and by the Party leaders in Congress and the Senate.

In the U.S. Congress, the leaders are forever negotiating with their own party members, attempting to create voting majorities. Most members of the U.S. House and Senate have their primary allegiance to their own voters rather than to their party or its leadership.
We'll have to take the author's word on this assertion, just as on every other sweeping assertion he makes, since yet again he cites no facts to back it up; instead, it is "fact" because he says it is. :roll:

In Europe, it is quite the opposite. The rank and file members of the parliaments owe their primary allegiance to their party leaders, because if they dissent, they will be kicked off the list of who can “stand” (i.e., represent) the party in a given district. As a result, elected representatives tend not to make themselves readily available directly to their constituents as is done in the U.S.
Another sweeping statement distilled into a single paragraph and again without offering anything to back it up with.

The British Conservative party leader David Cameron has just announced that the party will not push for tax cuts in the next election. The Thatcherite wing of the party is outraged and believes it to be both bad economics (which it is) and bad politics; but because of central party control, virtually all of the Conservative candidates standing for the next election will have to buy into the no tax cut position in order to be selected to run.
Finally he begins to move into the concrete, an example, only to once more pollute it with factual assertions pulled from thin air: why is opposition to these tax cuts he references "bad economics"?

Another factor leading to non-democratic centralism in Europe is that public-owned and -influenced TV is much more dominant in Europe than in the U.S. As would be expected, the journalists in the public-owned TV stations tend to favor big government (which is natural since that is where they get their salary checks). The most famous and notorious public-owned broadcasting entity is the BBC. The BBC has several TV networks in Britain and is rapidly expanding throughout the world, including the U.S., because it has a direct source of revenue; that is, a very hefty mandatory tax on each TV set in Britain. The BBC is also greatly expanding its local news coverage, attempting to crowd out local newspapers. The BBC editorial and news positions are consistently hostile to those who favor limited government and lower taxes.
Nice. Several assertions linked together as statements of fact but without any evidence: how does "public-owned and -influenced TV" lead to "non-democratic centralism" in Europe? What evidence is there that journalists in public-owned TV stations favour "big government"? What evidence is there that the BBC editorial and news positions are "consistently hostile to those who favour limited government and lower taxes"?

Thus, the free market democratic forces in Britain, as well as other European countries, are at a double disadvantage in that they need to fight the big state centralism, which can dole out favors from the public purse, and they are constantly attacked by the state-owned or -influenced media. Given that neither the political elite nor the media really like democracy, it and its necessary conditions are steadily being undermined in Europe. This democratic deficit has led to (or is a result of) excess statism which, in turn, has destroyed much of the economic vitality of the continent.
Another huge leap of "logic" being offered up here. Accepting the premise of his unsupported assertions about the BBC, how do we get from that to "given that neither the political nor the media really like democracy"?? And how did we go from the discussion of the various types of democratic representation of the preceeding paragraphs to "free market forces" as though they were one and the same thing? I must have absent the day my Political Science professor covered the right of the corporation to vote.

The one bright spot is the recent rise of limited government, free market activist groups, such as the TaxPayers' Alliance in Britain, and Liberté Chérie (http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/639) (i.e., cherished liberty) in France. These groups are led by intelligent and highly-motivated young professionals who understand the need for fundamental change and are willing to fight for it.
So finally we get to the heart of the article at the very bottom paragraph: this entire pamphlet is little more than an advert for these two lobby groups, and a poorly written one at that. :down:

Thanks for sharing the political propaganda Skybird. :roll:

[The Avon Lady]

I love articles like this where the author makes all kinds of assertions without backing any of them up.

Is the European Union a democracy? The Europeans and most others will argue yes, but there are many different degrees of democracy. Many Europeans increasingly feel powerless when it comes to their national government and particularly that of the EU, and for good reason. And the reason is?

Despite the fact that many of the nations of Europe are much older than the U.S., all of their democracies are much younger (with the partial exception of Switzerland), most have only been real democracies for the last several decades, and even less for the former communist states. What does this have to do with whether the EU is a democracy? Nothing. Following the above paragraph, about the "different degrees of democracy", the author implies (without any evidence) that the degree of a country's democracy is directly related to how long its been democratic. Aside from the fact that these two aspects of democracy are not directly related, one could also argue that newer democracies have the edge in being able to implement improvements that weren't known at the time of the older democracies.
More typical Scandium.

I read the article and understood the entire introduction to be referring to "top-down" versus "bottom up" democracy, as discussed in the 7th or 8th paragraph.

Was that really so difficult to comprehend or are you just not able to connect the dots?

I stopped reading the rest of your reply after this non-starter.

[scandium]

More typical Scandium. More typical Avon.


I read the article and understood the entire introduction to be referring to "top-down" versus "bottom up" democracy, as discussed in the 7th or 8th paragraph. And now you'd like a candy?

Was that really so difficult to comprehend or are you just not able to connect the dots? My problem is with the "dots".

I stopped reading the rest of your reply after this non-starter.
Okay no candy for you then. :arrgh!:

[TteFAboB]

Good articles Skybird.

With my previous knowledge and daily following of European politics I was able to understand and agree with the author.

[Iku-turso]

European democracy an oxymoron

Democracy:hmm: I think they invited it in Europe.Too bad it happened in ancient Greece;)

[tycho102]

Most of the French political leaders went to the same, very small, elite school in Paris (http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/929) and developed a very tight “old boy network,” hence the left-leaning and so-called right-leaning leaders are all fans of “big government” where they have control. The parliamentarians are all very firmly controlled by the party leaders; hence, unlike the U.S., dissenting votes are rare.
My problem is with the "dots".

I blame the Illuminati. They've covered up the dots so you can't see them. It's all part of their plan.:shifty:

[Rockstar]

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
In the Pledge of Allegiance we all pledge allegiance to our Republic, not to a democracy. "Republic" is the proper description of our government, not "democracy." The distinction between our Republic and a democracy is not an idle one. It has great legal significance.

The Constitution guarantees to every state a Republican form of government (Art. 4, Sec. 4). No state may join the United States unless it is a Republic. Our Republic is one dedicated to "liberty and justice for all." Minority individual rights are the priority. The people have natural rights instead of civil rights. The people are protected by the Bill of Rights from the majority. One vote in a jury can stop all of the majority from depriving any one of the people of his rights; this would not be so if the United States were a democracy. (see People's rights vs Citizens' rights)

In a pure democracy 51 beats 49[%]. In a democracy there is no such thing as a significant minority: there are no minority rights except civil rights (privileges) granted by a condescending majority. Only five of the U.S. Constitution's first ten amendments apply to Citizens of the United States. Simply stated, a democracy is a dictatorship of the majority. Socrates was executed by a democracy: though he harmed no one, the majority found him intolerable.


SOME DICTIONARY DEFINITIONS
Government. ....the government is but an agency of the state, distinguished as it must be in accurate thought from its scheme and machinery of government. ....In a colloquial sense, the United States or its representatives, considered as the prosecutor in a criminal action; as in the phrase, "the government objects to the witness."

Government; Republican government. One in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whom those powers are specially delegated. In re Duncan, 139 U.S. 449, 11 S.Ct. 573, 35 L.Ed. 219; Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 22 L.Ed. 627. [Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, p. 626]

Democracy. That form of government in which the sovereign power resides in and is exercised by the whole body of free citizens directly or indirectly through a system of representation, as distinguished from a monarchy, aristocracy, or oligarchy. Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, pp. 388-389.

Note: Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, can be found in any law library and most law offices.


COMMENTS
Notice that in a Democracy, the sovereignty is in the whole body of the free citizens. The sovereignty is not divided to smaller units such as individual citizens. To solve a problem, only the whole body politic is authorized to act. Also, being citizens, individuals have duties and obligations to the government. The government's only obligations to the citizens are those legislatively pre-defined for it by the whole body politic.

In a Republic, the sovereignty resides in the people themselves, whether one or many. In a Republic, one may act on his own or through his representatives as he chooses to solve a problem. Further, the people have no obligation to the government; instead, the government being hired by the people, is obliged to its owner, the people.

The people own the government agencies. The government agencies own the citizens. In the United States we have a three-tiered cast system consisting of people ---> government agencies ---> and citizens.

The people did "ordain and establish this Constitution," not for themselves, but "for the United States of America." In delegating powers to the government agencies the people gave up none of their own. (See Preamble of U.S. Constitution). This adoption of this concept is why the U.S. has been called the "Great Experiment in self government." The People govern themselves, while their agents (government agencies) perform tasks listed in the Preamble for the benefit of the People. The experiment is to answer the question, "Can self-governing people coexist and prevail over government agencies that have no authority over the People?"

The citizens of the United States are totally subject to the laws of the United States (See 14th Amendment of U.S. Constitution). NOTE: U.S. citizenship did not exist until July 28, 1868.

Actually, the United States is a mixture of the two systems of government (Republican under Common Law, and democratic under statutory law). The People enjoy their God-given natural rights in the Republic. In a democracy, the Citizens enjoy only government granted privileges (also known as civil rights).

There was a great political division between two major philosophers, Hobbes and Locke. Hobbes was on the side of government. He believed that sovereignty was vested in the state. Locke was on the side of the People. He believed that the fountain of sovereignty was the People of the state. Statists prefer Hobbes. Populists choose Locke. In California, the Government Code sides with Locke. Sections 11120 and 54950 both say, "The people of this State do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them." The preambles of the U.S. and California Constitutions also affirm the choice of Locke by the People.

[B]"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization,
it expects what never was and never will be."
Thomas Jefferson, 1816.

[scandium]

Rockstar: very nice explanation of the American system. :up:

[Rockstar]

It's interesting, when your sig "You have your way. I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, and the only way, it does not exist." -- Friedrich Nietzshe. I thought about our
Constitution which is based on the Holy Bible, Magna Carta and the Declaration of Independence. I thought, refuse any of these and our Constitution goes from a sturdy foundation giving light to right and wrong to a sandy beach shifting about giving excuse for many to do what seems right in there own eyes and causing division within.

[scandium]

Most of the French political leaders went to the same, very small, elite school in Paris (http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/929) and developed a very tight “old boy network,” hence the left-leaning and so-called right-leaning leaders are all fans of “big government” where they have control. The parliamentarians are all very firmly controlled by the party leaders; hence, unlike the U.S., dissenting votes are rare.
My problem is with the "dots".

I blame the Illuminati. They've covered up the dots so you can't see them. It's all part of their plan.:shifty:

Snide conspiracy nut comments from one of the whackjobs who still believe Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11 - priceless. :lol:

[scandium]

It's interesting, when your sig "You have your way. I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, and the only way, it does not exist." -- Friedrich Nietzshe. I thought about our
Constitution which is based on the Holy Bible, Magna Carta and the Declaration of Independence. I thought, refuse any of these and our Constitution goes from a sturdy foundation giving light to right and wrong to a sandy beach shifting about giving excuse for many to do what seems right in there own eyes and causing division within.

Hmm. The founders themselves exercised selectivity, though, in choosing these three documents and in choosing what to incorporate from them into the Constitution; it follows from that, I would think, and from those aspects of the Constitution on "freedom of religion", that you are free to reject the Holy Bible, for instance, and still accept the U.S. Constitution; in fact you would only be exercising one of your constitutional rights in doing so.

On this topic, the way that I interpret the Nietzshe quote here is that the U.S. Constitution is not the right way, the correct way, and the only way for man to create a compact with which to live together and govern themselves; it has worked for the U.S. well enough and the country has overcome many obstacles and challenges that it has faced, but this doesn't mean that men in other countries cannot also live together, prosper, and be free under another and different compact.

And even under the U.S. Constitution there is considerable room for dissent, and as I understand it, the Founding Fathers - being themselves "rebels" - desired that dissent should not only be accepted, but even encouraged should government no longer serve the best interests of the society or act in a manner that is counter to their well being or endangers them.

That's just my thoughts anyway. Though I admire the U.S. Founding Fathers, and have quite a lot of respect for the Constitution they created, I am not myself American.

[Kurushio]

European democracy an oxymoron
Democracy:hmm: I think they invited it in Europe.Too bad it happened in ancient Greece;)

The concept of "democracy" was invented in Greece, but to today's standards, Ancient Greek democracy is more like today's Communism. The population of Ancient Greece were not allowed to vote, just the senate. :up:

Modern democracy as we know it, was invented by the British.

Saying that, re-reading this article...you know, the USA isn't any better when it comes to democracy. See how polarized that country is today and all the accusations of poll rigging...? I don't think a "perfect" democracy exists...or ever will.

[Skybird]

We are too many, that's what it comes down to, somehow. Too huge communities, too huge countries, too many people everywhere.

When world population still was measures in some dozen million, that would have been something for me. When leaving your citiy thriough the gate really means that now you are out there, in the wilderness, beyond the city walls, not not an endless passing through villages anfter suburbs after small communties, after little towns, after suburbs, after bigger cities... I am this kind of a fossile - I need my little castle that is just for me, my deep-dugging hole in the ground where I feel home and safe and that is strictly separate to everything around, from where I can start my expeditions, and go back to. Just a tent in the open prairie and every day moving on is not for me, and this cancer-like speading of human settlements in my place of the world just sickens me.

Democracy could work - in small groups whose sizes everyone can have in view. but where you talk of group-sizes about x-thousands, millions, all hope seems to be lost. Honstely, I think that on that scale some kind of feudal structures probably work better. maybe it is not by random that the democratic bodies of the west, EU, and USA, in their peripheries and beyond that, effectively behave and influence things in the style of empires, not democracies. And I mean the term "empire" technically only, not judging it bad or good.

In "Dune", set 11 thousand years in the future, Frank Herbert also let the galaxy rule by man with help of totally feudal structures. :) :up: He also let a religion that shares striking similiarities with Islam come to dominating power :( :down: , while Judaism has detoriated into a secret and hidden community and survived that way, and the "orange-catholic church" has turned into a powerless, hollow facade only :( :down: - "Ein Schelm wer Böses dabei denkt!" :-j

[TteFAboB]

Rockstar, putting Nietzsche into context, he struggled against the establishment of his period, just like the American revolutionaries, the difference is Nietzsche had far less ambitions and you can't draw a Constitution out of him. :rotfl:

That's a good post by the way.

Today democracy has become an anti-democratic word, because it has been spoken, repeated and abused to exhaustion so that it barely carries any democratic values or principles with it, being reduced to a mere slogan. Democracy as a vague empty source, a mere procedure, is exactly the definition of democracy that leads to its destruction in Europe. No wonder the founding fathers were extremely weary of democracy, and even predicted if anything would lead to the destruction of freedom in the USA, it would be it.

[Skybird]

In a pure democracy 51 beats 49[%].
I'm sure we all remember that all to well from recent events... :lol: :-j

[VipertheSniper]

Democracy could work - in small groups whose sizes everyone can have in view. but where you talk of group-sizes about x-thousands, millions, all hope seems to be lost.

Any form of government could work if there weren't things like might and money...
They both corrupt people.

Democracy is probably the best form of government that has come along yet tho, as such I think it's everyones duty to fight for excercising it right, that would include to not post your political views only a forum on subsims, but more openly ;)

Might wanna found a party?

P.S.: I don't want to imply I'm not guilty of all the same things.

[Skybird]

I have come to the conclusion that parties are the death of parliamentary democracy.

However, when I was 17, 18, 19, I twice was member of youth organisation of parties, CDU-biased. We had good "fetes", but the politcial-related events were some of the ost disgusting experiences of mine.

also, I am no club-animal.

Also, I do not hide my opinion in private life, nor do I shy away from a debate. In fact, that I was threatend by mail twice this years probably is not in relation to many internet discussion of mine, but due to my opinion-saying in real life.

[Rockstar]

In a pure democracy 51 beats 49[%].
I'm sure we all remember that all to well from recent events... :lol: :-j

Good thing we have an electoral college providing every state (not just most populated ones) a say in the out come of a U.S. presidential election. ;)