"Democracy"

Yah.

Why do we always do that with a German accent? Because we don't know how to do a....Japanese..?

(Laughing, thing of a French tough-guy accent.)

Oui!! You weel wear thees chapeau!

0 Replies

Re: "Democracy"

JTT wrote:

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
paul andrew bourne wrote:
Is democracy really the voice of the people?

As close as it comes.

That the voice of the people may argue for oppressive actions is irrelevant as respects your question, but it is inevitable that there are A2K voices who, gratuitously, insist upon educating us on the dark side of our treasured concepts.

Forsooth, what is this pernicious little word, educate, that you seek to impose upon my comfortable little world. I have my flag, my prejudices, my ignorances to keep me warm; what need have I for education?

Yes, JTT you are among the educated while all who hold differing opinions from your own are the ignorant, prejudiced jingoists.

For those who would work so diligently, and reliably, to find the flaws in democracy, please provide us with the preferable alternative to the governance of Man.

How about democracy mixed with some morality, some respect for others, some tolerance, some open-mindedness? How about imagining that democracy cannot be taught at the point of a cruise missile? How about democracy brought to a country without shock and awe, without blugeoning a populace into submission?

How about a democracy that holds to democratic principles; the sanctity of life, not just for the "us's" but for the "thems" too. How about a democracy that gives more than lip service to making this a better world for all? How about a democracy that puts their money where their mouth is instead of using their wealth as a tool to advance only themselves and their interests?

Thanks for that impassioned speech. It's devoid of meaning in the context of this thread, but I'm sure it made you feel good, and, after all, that's what counts isn't it?

You are, quite obviously, denouncing a point in time government (Could it possibly be the Bush Administration?), but what has that to do with the concept of democracy? The challenge was not to offer criticism of the current US administration, but to offer an alternative to democracy.
All you have done is render a rather commonplace diatribe about the current government in America.

Because I suffer fools too gladly, the question for you is: Do you believe that their is a form of government that is better suited to achieving your desired end than democracy? If so, what is it? If not, save the anti-Bush rant for another thread where it will fit better.

Sadly there is an conclave on A2K who believe that they are somehow demonstrating a unique intelligence by offering up the dark side of each and every principle that might be held deeply by the majority (those oppressive bastards!).

Even more sadly, there are those who hide behind talking points and vague generalities and then mistakenly believe that they are being democratic. It is the very antithesis of democracy that "principle[s] that might be held deeply by the majority" are somehow off limits to criticism.

You make a mistake that is quite common to your breed. I do not seek to suppress criticisms of democracy.

You make another mistake in implying that the principle of free speech is an inherent element of democracy. Societies that embrace democracy tend to also embrace some form of free speech, but the two are not joined at the hip. It would be difficult for a true democracy to function without some degree of unrestricted discourse, but the absence of free speech is hardly "the very antithesis of democracy."

Be that as it may, that I challenge criticism of democracy is clearly an expression of free speech. If you have a problem with my challenge that you should likewise sneer at your own of me.

But sad as it makes me to say so, I'm not at all surprised to find that you hold to such beliefs, Buzz.

Interesting. I'm afraid I can't say that I am familiar with you, and yet you obviously have been studying my postings or how else might you have formed a reasoned profile of me that predicts the comments I've made on this thread?

I'm flattered.

0 Replies

hightor wrote:

Quote:
... please provide us with the preferable alternative to the governance of Man.

Maybe a "participatory democracy" -- what we enjoy now is a spectator's democracy; a minority of citizens, once every few years, gets off its collective duff and wearily makes a choice between tweedle-dum and tweedle-dee, then the winning side congratulates itself on being part of the process, the losers claim the vote was rigged, then everyone goes back to whatever they were doing before all those horrible political commercials started running non-stop.

I don't think US democracy is incurably ill, but I don't think it's particularly healthy at the moment either.

Hightor my friend, welcome to A2K!

I thought you might be here under a different name but didn't find anyone with enough similarity to your own unique and enjoyable commentary to believe this was the case.

As happy as I am to find you have joined this home away from Abuzz, I'm afraid you have made the same misstep as the excitable JTT.

While you are perfectly free to render commentary on the state of American democracy, the original question ran to democracy as did my challenge.

Democracy has its flaws because it is a construct of flawed humans and is subject to their flawed execution.

Your desire to see everyone participating in democracy is interesting, and not at all as reasonable as you would, obviously, argue.

A so-called spectator democracy is the product of either a prosperous nation wherein there is a perception that very few issues are of major import, or an oppressive one where participation in a sham democracy is fraught with peril, and discouraged by the ruling powers.

Surely you do not believe the US is in the latter category.

A more important sign of the health of US democracy is whether or not those who wish to participate can.

Not to say that you endorse this, but forcing everyone to participate in a democracy, not only smacks of tyranny, but, it seems to be, pointless. You can lead a horse to water...You can force a person to vote, but you can't force them to devote any measure of thought to the effort.

While I would never classify you in the same rhetorical class as JTT, I do think you share a belief with him that there is no better form of human governance than democracy.

But then I could be wrong.

0 Replies

Re: "Democracy"
Buzz:
As close as it comes.

That the voice of the people may argue for oppressive actions is irrelevant as respects your question, but it is inevitable that there are A2K voices who, gratuitously, insist upon educating us on the dark side of our treasured concepts.

Forsooth, what is this pernicious little word, educate, that you seek to impose upon my comfortable little world. I have my flag, my prejudices, my ignorances to keep me warm; what need have I for education?

Buzz: Yes, JTT you are among the educated while all who hold differing opinions from your own are the ignorant, prejudiced jingoists.

You don't have to be educated to know right from wrong, Buzz. You've pretty well nailed it here with your description of yourself.

Buzz: For those who would work so diligently, and reliably, to find the flaws in democracy, please provide us with the preferable alternative to the governance of Man.

How about democracy mixed with some morality, some respect for others, some tolerance, some open-mindedness? How about imagining that democracy cannot be taught at the point of a cruise missile? How about democracy brought to a country without shock and awe, without blugeoning a populace into submission?

How about a democracy that holds to democratic principles; the sanctity of life, not just for the "us's" but for the "thems" too. How about a democracy that gives more than lip service to making this a better world for all? How about a democracy that puts their money where their mouth is instead of using their wealth as a tool to advance only themselves and their interests?

Buzz:
You are, quite obviously, denouncing a point in time government (Could it possibly be the Bush Administration?), but what has that to do with the concept of democracy?

I'd say it is very pertinent. With this simple set of clues, you were able to home right in on the right answer. BINGO!

Buzz: The challenge was not to offer criticism of the current US administration, but to offer an alternative to democracy.
All you have done is render a rather commonplace diatribe about the current government in America.

When it functions as intended democracy is a wonderful form of government. When it is seriously abused, as I pointed up in my last paragraph, you know there are problems with that democracy.

Buzz: If not, save the anti-Bush rant for another thread where it will fit better.

Buzz: Sadly there is an conclave on A2K who believe that they are somehow demonstrating a unique intelligence by offering up the dark side of each and every principle that might be held deeply by the majority (those oppressive bastards!).

You don't even try to disguise these blatant contradictions, Buzz. You place them one right after another. How can you BE so thick?

Even more sadly, there are those who hide behind talking points and vague generalities and then mistakenly believe that they are being democratic. It is the very antithesis of democracy that "principle[s] that might be held deeply by the majority" are somehow off limits to criticism.

Buzz:
You make a mistake that is quite common to your breed. I do not seek to suppress criticisms of democracy.

Here we go again with the hypocrisy! At least this time you've spaced them out into different threads. What were you trying to tell people in the AI thread, that it is unpatriotic, that you get angry when that people should criticize their own government?

You folks use this fatuous talking point all the time. It is a hallmark of the wingnut branch of conservatism, the group that you claim membership in.

Buzz: You make another mistake in implying that the principle of free speech is an inherent element of democracy. Societies that embrace democracy tend to also embrace some form of free speech, but the two are not joined at the hip. It would be difficult for a true democracy to function without some degree of unrestricted discourse, but the absence of free speech is hardly "the very antithesis of democracy."

Could you possibly have made that any more convoluted; I seriously doubt it. But please, enough! Don't think that you have to explain yourself, really you don't.

Be that as it may, that I challenge criticism of democracy is clearly an expression of free speech. If you have a problem with my challenge that you should likewise sneer at your own of me.

Not to be outdone by your last paragraph, you launch yet another mighty effort to obfuscate. But, hey, if you understand yourself, Buzz, that's enough for me, ... really, ... I mean it ... please no more, I give up, you silver-tongued orator you.

Buzz:
Interesting. I'm afraid I can't say that I am familiar with you, and yet you obviously have been studying my postings or how else might you have formed a reasoned profile of me that predicts the comments I've made on this thread?

There was no need for me to study anything from the past. Your recent spate of postings stand fatuous all on their own.

0 Replies

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

A more important sign of the health of US democracy is whether or not those who wish to participate can.

close enough, i guess.

don't vote, don't bitch.

0 Replies

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

You can lead a horse to water...You can force a person to vote, but you can't force them to devote any measure of thought to the effort.

Voila, the result is ...

But then I could be wrong.

No Finn, you finally got something right.

0 Replies

Really nice to read your thoughts again, esteemed Finn, and thank you for the welcome.

I don't think that "democracy", although defined as "government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives" is a form of government, but rather a condition which many governments seek to enhance, the notion being that, given a voice and a part to play, the masses will be less likely to resent their rulers and more likely to remain cooperative. "Democracy" as the unrestricted rule of the people is directly affected by the numbers of people involved. A small group of people, when faced with a decision, can usually come up with a response by talking it over among themselves. But get a larger group together and you're going to need "Robert's Rules of Order" just to facilitate the discussion. Then combine this group with thousands of others in a state and "democracy" becomes more of an abstraction. Once people start electing representatives -- mere mortals after all, capable of duplicity -- actual democracy recedes although the "spirit of democracy" is often invoked for the purpose of political rhetoric.

For democracy to have a concrete meaning, it must be exercised in our day to day lives -- at least more often than a vote every two years. As we have perfected our institutions, however, the need to work things out has lessened, and the more active and messy style of democracy has been in eclipse for some time. We can now "vote with our pocketbooks" or make choices that are "little more than beauty contests". The decline of the labor movement has also removed an arena where democracy once flourished -- or could have.

Quote:

I do think you share a belief with him that there is no better form of human governance than democracy.

Nah, I don't think that much about it -- in my ideal polity, the confederation of small city-states, it would be part of the mix but that's just fantasy. In the political world today, "democracy" does not equate with progressive or liberal policies. The rise of the religious right in the US is an example of democracy in action, people finding their voices, becoming aware of their power, and exercising their votes to ensure that the scourge of Darwinism is expunged. Frankly, Finn, I am more concerned with justice than democracy, per se. An enlightened despot might conceivably govern in a way which would also allow individual freedom to flourish.

As far as participatory democracy goes, I think it is legitimate to point out the lack of interest that US voters exhibit, but the fact that most who wish to vote can is a good thing. I definitely agree that democracy is not served by forcing people to show up at the ballot box.

0 Replies

Where'd everyone go? Was it something I said?

0 Replies

People often get bored by a topic . . . don't flatter yourself, they have drifted off to other things, and i doubt very seriously that it resulted from your contributions . . .

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

[size=7]No one will suspect us when we form an alliance, Merry! Shhh[/size]

As I understand--and until someone makes a better opposing point--the checks and balances made vast improvements on straight democracy. There is room for abuses--but the room is small--and I think our remedies are installed, as well.

Which is why the Republicans are trying to eliminate those checks and balances.

0 Replies

Why is it that so many Americans get confused about "republic" and "democracy"? They're not incompatible. Of course a republic might not be democratic (North Korea) but it ain't necessarily so. America has a republic which is democratic. Or am I terribly wrong?

0 Replies

You are often terribly wrong, GF, but we haven't wanted to tell you, because you seem a nice sort. However, in this case the only thing you've got wrong is the part about North Korea--which is allegedly a republic. It is, of course, an autocratic monarchy, regardless of the title which they attach to it. The United States, now, that is a plutocratic republic, not a democratic republic.

0 Replies

Atkins wrote:

Lash wrote:
[size=7]No one will suspect us when we form an alliance, Merry! Shhh[/size]

As I understand--and until someone makes a better opposing point--the checks and balances made vast improvements on straight democracy. There is room for abuses--but the room is small--and I think our remedies are installed, as well.

Which is why the Republicans are trying to eliminate those checks and balances.

It had never been used.

0 Replies

goodfielder wrote:

Why is it that so many Americans get confused about "republic" and "democracy"? They're not incompatible. Of course a republic might not be democratic (North Korea) but it ain't necessarily so. America has a republic which is democratic. Or am I terribly wrong?

you'd think that the confusion begins with the average american being told on a regular basis that the u.s. "is a democracy" and "the u.s. is a republic." depending on what the topic is. and what the slant is. and who the speaker is.

they use each term to support whatever opinion they are pushing, it seems like to me.

0 Replies

hightor wrote:

Where'd everyone go? Was it something I said?

hightor

While A2K is far more restrained than Abuzz, you'll note that the same sorts (albeit more subdued) tread these threads.

My bet is that you received a snide "Don't flatter yourself..." from M. Setanta because you had the temerity to post something complimentary about yours truly.

But then maybe not. I don't what to flatter myself and take credit for the rudeness of anyone on A2K.

We are free, here, of the inane scatological rants of multi-personalities, but not so of foolishness. Nevertheless, I think you'll find this a superior forum to Abuzz, not so much for the quality of participants, (although there are numerous worthies) but for the absence of maddening cyber-vandals.

Personally, I have less opportunities to engage than I did in Abuzz days, but still I look forward to exchanging thoughts with you.

Sad to say that you didn't receive much of a welcome on this thread, but don't let that discourage you.

0 Replies

Surely someone must have posted this by now ? :

Quote:

Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried.
-Winston Churchill

0 Replies

If we hadn't, and i don't recall it, we ought to have done.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know