Is Democracy the real way to go?

Well, that certainly leaves the USA out of that mix, doesn't it, Set?

Every president since WWII has been a war criminal and none have ever been held accountable. And as presidents don't commit these war crimes all by their lonesome, the supporting staff of war criminals - whoa, extensive much? - has also never been held to account.

Reagan broke numerous laws, international and national and he gets an airport named after him.

What form of governance is the USA? What's it to be named, The United Association of Thieves and Murderers, The Federation of War Criminals?

the problem with democracy, is that there is always an opportunity for a majority to oppress a minority. in a republic its the other way around.but when it is anarchy with some form of restraint on people, it ensures equality, which is the most important thing in a government. the alternative would be communism, with a select group of leaders, with no way of receiving bribes, or any corruption. the only problem would be election. if chosen at birth, though, it would ensure that they are well educated, and guided, so long as the teachers are not power hungry (trying to influence them) another method for the education that could stop corruption would be that the leaders are isolated from birth, and keep getting new teachers, and are taught how to lead in a fair way. to be chosen, they could be volunteered by families, tested, and if they succeed, then they are taken away from the families. this may seem cruel, but it seemed to work well for Jedi, and the only reason they failed was that goddamn anikan skywalker, and palpatine. the system seemed to be pretty golden. sorry if this is a bit unimaginative, but it does kind of make sense. the way they had it set up is that they have a council of people that passed all of the tests needed, elected by other council members, in which you have a master (yoda) and the lower ranks, who can veto the choices of others. you need complete control. have you ever seen sheep rebel against a shepard?

This is an utterly false statement. You obvious don't know what republic means. A republic is a government of laws. It could be democratic, it could be oligarchic, as was the Roman republic.

You shouldn't dive in the deep end of the pool when you don't know how to swim.

ok. so i was wrong there. but what about the rest. so far, thats the only part youve addressed...

If there is any restraint on the people, it's not anarchy. Far from assuring equality, anarchy would be what Hobbes called the war of all against all, it would mean not equality, but the dominance of the strongest and most violent. Communism does not by definition mean a select group of leaders, and in practice, it has not only not been free of corruption, but has been a sink of corruption.

Essentially, you're advocating monarchy, or at the least oligarchy, with the same bankrupt arguments which were trotted out in Euope to justify the system when people began seriously to question it.

I don't know why you expect me to address the rest of your screed, it's a series of statements from authority, and most of them are flat wrong. You're basically making this up as you do along.

well, of course ive been making it up as i go.

i dont know of any one who maps out their whole discussion before they begin it.

Your circle of acquaintance must be a fuzzy-headed lot, then. Before beginning a discussion, it helps to have in mind an idea or a set of ideas based upon something more than odd musings that occurred to you one day. It also helps immeasurably to have sound definitions for the terms you intend to use. It appears to me that you decided upon no very good basis that democracy necessarily entails the oppression of any minority you might be able to define, and then proceeded from there. It also appears that you don't understand that not getting your own way does not necessarily constitute oppression. All in all, it seems to me that you didn't give this much thought before launching into a set of completely fanciful statements.

i dont how you expect to tell people that they are wrong, insult their friends, call them ignorant, tell them that their reasons dont make sense, call the statements false, not even tell them why, and get anything but making the other person upset. i dont know how this seems in any way practical, or productive, but if im too "fuzzy-headed" (all have a full head of hair, anyways), then why do you even waste your time with me? by the way, you ripping on my friends is only proving one of my points correct. figure it out, if your not to arrogant and bigoted to. you are taking this way to seriously.

Did you expect that you would lay out a proposition and that no one would tell you you are wrong? Do you think you are somehow indemnified against being told you are wrong? I didn't insult your friends, and in fact, i referred to your acquaintance. I have no idea if you are talking about your friends or not, and it is immaterial. You said that you don't know anyone who "maps out their whole discussion before they begin it." So my comment was predicated upon an assumption that you therefore don't know anyone who gives reasonable consideration to a proposition before offering it for discussion. Ignorance is not an insult, you know. Were anyone to ask me about particle physics, i'd have no problem stating that it is a subject of which i am ignorant. Your remarks about democracy and about what a republic is, as well as your naive statement about communism suggest to me that you are ignorant in these particular matters. For example, communism is an economic system, not a political system. Attempting to compare communism to democracy is a case of comparing apples to oranges.

I have told you that your reasoning doesn't make sense because your premises are unsubstantiated. You are assuming that democracy necessarily leads to oppression and therefore inevitably to armed strife, to war. You don't even provide a logical basis to assume that, never mind anything resembling evidence.

No, i don't take this silliness seriously at all. However, the point of a site such as this is discussion, and there's no sign over the door that tells you no one will ever say you're wrong. If you intend to post your ideas on line, you will need to accept that your ideas might be challenged. In fact, it would help you to assume that your ideas will inevitably be challenged. What did you think would happen? Did you think that you would post this and people would rush in to say: "Oh my god! It's so clear, i'd never thought of that before!"--or something equally silly? If you start a discussion such as this, at least at this site, you can expect people to challenge what you write.

This is really rich coming from you, Setanta. Remember back to the Pet Peeves thread.



You had a major problem acknowledging your level of ignorance on English grammar and how English works.

...
yes. i am wrong. i am ignorant, and i do need to learn more about this stuff. i wont change my views, but i can see that i am ignorant enough that i should not be so pretentious to say words that are to big for me. im sorry if i was so sensitive, and apologize. however, i came to learn. i was arrogant to think that people would not agree. in fact, i should never have done what you said i have, jumping into a deep end without even bothering to learn to swim.

Well, don't try to put that on me. We are all ignorant, but i've not said you were pretentious, nor too sensitive--and there's nothing for which you need apologize. I haven't said that you were arrogant either--writing those things makes me wonder if you don't have a chip on your shoulder.

But yes, you definitely need to be prepared if you want to sustain a proposition such as yours. You know, i've asked you several times what you would prefer to democracy, and you've not replied.

OK. i think this should do it. if a straightforward democracy (everyone votes on two sides of a matter) were a world thing, then it would definitely give rise to conflict. however, as a smaller, more individualistic government, like, for a small town, it would probably work out. what i would propose as an alternative would be a blend between the two. think of an upside tree diagram. lots of little groups vote on a matter,and what ever side is passed moves up to a representative to vote on that side of it, and what ever that decides the representative of that group votes in favor of, and so on. sorry if this is a bit unclear. just ask what you dont understand, and il try to clarify.
and by the way, those are not things You said to me, they are things I said to me.

You say, a blend between the two. A blend between democracy and what else? Also, you continue to rely upon an unsubstantiated claim that a democracy would inevitably result in conflict. I have two problems with that--one, of course, is that you don't even provide a logical basis for believing that (and transferring the claim to a world-wide government doesn't alter that). The second problem is with the vagueness of the claim--what do you mean by conflict? Would this alleged conflict necessarily be violent? Is there any reason to assume that it would differ materially from the ordinary conflicts which characterize democratic institutions at other levels?

So my question is, a blend of democracy and what else?

In the interest of fairness, i will admit that "democracy" often doesn't work. But that is because of the practice of what is alleged to be democracy, and not because of any demonstrable, inherent flaw in the theory of democracy. Governments rig elections, or, dissatisfied with the outcome of an election, groups either refuse to give up power, or organize a coup d'état against the democratically elected government. There is sufficient evidence that democracy as it is practiced is a sham in so many parts of the world that i believe that any attempt to establish a world-wide democracy, at this time, would be doomed. Once again, though, that would be because the practice of democracy is flawed, not the concept.

it would be where like, a small community votes on a matter, and the choice that that community chooses is voted by a representative of that community, into the next tier of voting. which ever that tier chooses, the representative of that votes upon. how many tiers that a decision goes through can be decided by how fast it is required to have a choice made. but think of it as a tree diagram. im sorry if this is unclear, but ask and il try to clarify.

well, theoretically, many forms of government would work. its only because of human corruption that they dont.

OK, so that's not actually a combination of democracy with any other form of government.

Well, we already know that democracy does work. It's in use all over the planet.