1
   

Supporters of American Democracy, defend yourselves.

 
 
amist
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Feb, 2010 06:02 pm
@amist,
There are ample examples of non democratic regimes throughout history that have not resulted in widespread despair among the populous. Surely though the kind of widespread you are talking about would not take place in a sufficiently democratic government, but it's not been properly demonstrated that despair of this kind is a problem, so you've pretty much set up a false ailment, the cure for which is representative democracy.

I'd also like to point out that many people who live in representative democracies suffer from the kind of depression you're asserting would arise in the lack of at least of a representative democracy.

It also doesn't make sense to me that a government that is serving its proper function would cause distress in a population. It seems to me that this would be evidence of something wrong within the population that is being distressed by the good government rather than evidence of a need for the change of style of government.
0 Replies
 
EmperorNero
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Feb, 2010 11:46 am
@amist,
amist;126057 wrote:
What makes every legal adult with U.S. citizenship qualified to choose the leaders of the most powerful country in the world? If they are not qualified, then why do they have a right to choose who the most powerful people in the world are?


They don't have the right. That's an invention of later times. The American republic was meant to only have those vote who are informed about the system and with an interest in the system.
amist
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Feb, 2010 08:57 pm
@amist,
So then you agree with me?
0 Replies
 
Insty
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Feb, 2010 09:28 pm
@EmperorNero,
EmperorNero;131866 wrote:
They don't have the right. That's an invention of later times. The American republic was meant to only have those vote who are informed about the system and with an interest in the system.

As a legal matter, they do have the right. I don't agree with the statement that this right is a later invention, but even if that were true, it wouldn't follow that the right to vote doesn't exist, or that it shouldn't be recognized.
0 Replies
 
Pepijn Sweep
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Feb, 2010 02:51 am
@EmperorNero,
EmperorNero;131866 wrote:
They don't have the right. That's an invention of later times. The American republic was meant to only have those vote who are informed about the system and with an interest in the system.

I would worry more about the elected people. Are they capable or more capital orientated?

In case of an impeacement of the President the Chairman of the Senate will become the next. Does this mean the rest of the Barak Administration will be called Clinton Administration? Who's going to be the Vice-President?

The Treasurer:lol:
Pepijn Sweep
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Mar, 2010 06:27 am
@Pepijn Sweep,
:detective:Yesterday was special. I went to town-centre, the Dam of A,sterdam. I was curious and joined a band of americano's. They were a bit loud, but that was because of the beer. Bavaria.

They were young, ent-housiastic & Rebels ! We were singing marching songs like When the Saints etc. I was such an good mood by this manifestation of Strenght and Hopefullness. Yust wondered what they were doing on the Dam-Rak...

American Out-Laws they called themselves ! :Not-Impressed:
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/23/2024 at 11:03:15