Democracy Democracy...

I notice how no one ever brings in the over all intelligence of America as well...

We have total democracy it would be like letting a mentaly challenged person be your dictator.

 

That does seem to be an apt description of George Bush. But he's not actually running the show.

 

Lose the im-better-than-you mentality, buddy. You have contradicted yourself many times over in this thread, while managing to lack any real content.

Direct democracy would work IMO, representative democracy is asking for trouble.

 

No Democracy will work... but not indeffenitly. It will always in turn lead to tyranny. I already know that it will so don't attempt to tell me other wise unless you come with an arguement. And by the by, intelligence FTW

 

Okay, here's my argument:

There has to be something to "Rule" the people.

With direct democracy the people get to rule themselves via votes. Any other system puts the power in the hands of a small group of people, which leads to corruption.

Get it now? I made it nice and simple for you. So much for intelligence FTW.

 

Who is to say that the vote turns out to always aid the society? Voting in a Democratic system or any other system does not entale a intelligent voting group. I don't vote because my vote no matter how educated I may have created my opinion as, the guy in front of me is most likly going to be voting because hes a democrate, the guy behind me could be drunk and saying that its the only way to vote. Or someone else in the line could just go in and close their eyes and push a button or two. Voting does not use intelligence, which is why I am so against it.

Democratic governments no matter how small or large still can become corrupt. Rember how it only takes a majority rule? Well what happens if the majority is only in it for theirselves? What happens one guy gets enough people behind him and happens to be voted into a dictatorship?

You can't have a system where the officials are in any contact with the public or any commodity other than, food and shelter. The public is corrupt, the public will always corrupt and will always try to get the government to back them no matter whos pocket they need to line.

If you hide the officals but only allow the public to feel the power of them you're system becomes less corruptable. BUT these few people MUST be willing to wed theirselves to the society. Hence, if you get a bunch of philosophers or people of equal intellect they will become less likly to be corrupt. Monks someone of that particular life style. Only REAL freedom I'm really advocating to take away is the ability for the public to have a say in what its country does.

 

Until they end Republican-versus-Democrat and stop screwing around with the votes themselves, it wouldn't matter if the majority voted for Santa Clause, because between the media and all else, we end up with whatever puppet is thought to be the most useful to the goal of world domination.

I have been studying Venezuela and Chavez for months. He was voted in by his PEOPLE because they LIKE him. He runs around in a red VW bug WITHOUT a million security people and hangs out with his FELLOW VENEZUELANS. He doesn't try to put himself into an untouchable class. His ideas are RADICAL, but they WORK (and I tend to agree with how he works). I would submit that there are enough people in the US, the REAL majority, who would support a president who they could relate to, and who seemed to actually have our best interests as a priority. But we have to get past the mentality of "gotta vote Republican because I always have/I was raised Republican".

 

Thats my biggest beef with democracy. People do not choose their vote wisely they instead spend it without a wim or a worry.

 

Are you referring to the American tradition of democracy or democracy as a larger ideal.

Because they're two quite very different arguments.

 

His

thing has no basis in anything, he just came up with something he thought was catchy. He's never been able to provide any justification for his formula.

 

Then again I never really have attempted to either.

And it doesn't help that you guys can't come up with a deffenition for Freedom so I know what you all think it is.

 

Freedom is state of being that all life forms understand. It's not something that fits into any formula, no matter what those that would like to benefit by control think. It's outside of calculation.

 

Yes, that formula is bullshit. Like gardener said, it just sounds catchy, but means nothing.

And we agreed on a definition of freedom in the thread that was deleted: the ability to do whatever you want as long as you aren't infringing on anyone else's rights.

 

stupid people who dont even have an idea what democracy is because they have never lived in a place where no democracy is. Silly greedy people who cannot believe they are at the bottom of the pile and having to live on the shit of the rich. I have live in place where we are at bottom of the tree but without democracy. I prefer with democracy eat shit than eat shit with none

 

Two men stumble accross some food. One man is a sick elderly man and the other a young man in good physical condition who is the father of a large family. The old man is starving and will not survive the month if he does not recieve the food. And the young man's family is running short on their current supply of food and they need more to feed their many children. The old man knows how to ration the food to himself and can easily make it last a month while the younger man does not have knowledge of how to ration causing the food to only last a week for his family.


Who gets the food if we're going to use the defenition posted and agreed upon above? Every person has the right to food, but again, who gets the food?

 

I'll explain the equation once we define freedom and liberty in terms that we can all agree on.

 

And you my fine friend make no sense at all.

But I'm off to go take a final I shall return my friends.

 

Actually, he makes much more sence than you do. As for your food problem, divide it between the people.

 

Strange, made excellent sense to me.

The "food" problem? They both share food AND knowledge.

"Freedom" - No authoritarian yoke around your neck keeping you from being happy, no guilty conscience from whatever you do with your "freedom" to keep you from being happy.

"Liberty" = freedom.
Democracy has nothing to do with either. It's just a made up word for a concept that nobody can agree upon.

"Demon-ocracy." See, I can make one up too.