posted
First lemme say that I would post this on the otherside but I wanna attract mostly the people on this side of the wall to look at it.
Secondly: I hope that maybe Mr Card will look at it and thridly I have a couple of qoutes I want to talk about.
"When the state fears the people it is a democracy, when the people fear the state it is a dictatorship" (I think this was by Mr. Orwell)
Does this mean we all live in dictatorships? Don't we all to one degree or another fear that the government will abuse its power and persecute/opress us for one reason or another? Wouldn't we not fear the government if we knew that no matter what happened a vote could change it for good or ill to what the will of people?
However for those who say that this is true can you name me instances whee the government in one external or internal adventure ignored the wishes of the people to pursue what the state felt was the correct course?
I'm not saying that dictatorships are wrong/right since that kind of distinction is usually a little hazy in politics but yes I know that in a democracy the people decide what is right while in a dictatorship the party decides. And isn't mostly in most countries a political party decided policy rather then the people? Sure we may vote in said party and vote out said party after X amount of years but while they are IN office it is hard to influence their action beyond the thread of "we'll vote for the other guy if you don't live up to your end of the bargin" and sometimes dispite this they ignore the wishes of the people and continue what could be destructive goals.
I am glad that Martin listened to the people when he said No/Non to the American's in Missile defence and I am glad that the American's pulled pulled out of Vietnam when the people were sick of the war. However this doesn't excuse the fact that not just our governments but any government has time and again ignored the general consesus of what is the people democratically percieved as right and pursued their own ends possibly costing thousands of lives and depending on the time/currency millions to billions of dollars on foreign adventures and possibly internal ones as well.
SO the question stands, I give you all a challenge to take a step back, take a deep breath and open you eyes. Look around you see what your respective nation is doing and examine whar your host nation is doing and not just decide whether or not YOU favor it or not but whether or not the people as a WHOLE believe and percieve it as the right course of action to take. Once you have done this then and only then can you honestly say that Yes! I live in a free democracy! or No, I live in an authoritan state! Does the government fear the people or the people the state?
"Democracy is 3 wolves and a sheep deciding whats for dinner, liberty is a heavily armed sheep contesting the vote."
Now what are you thoughts on this one? Do certain groups of individuals have the right if they don't like the vote to take up arms and thwart the democratic process? But then again was the process democratic? With the opposition so certain and the result so immoral?
Read, listen learn and open you mind.
Posts: 1567 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
America is not a democracy. American is a capitalist/republic or something to that effect. Our forefathers never intended for America to be one either. (I hate talking about them like that, because times change and many people who think they know what they wanted actually don't know, and I could be one of them. Anyway.)
True democracies have always ended up falling, because what it really would end up being is mob rule, and that's a very very bad thing.
And about the too few voter thing... I think we have TOO MANY people voting. I voted and I admit I shouldn't have. I knew almost nothing about what's truly going on in this country and didn't really look into who was who. I still probably would not have changed my vote president wise, but I went with my past party on many of the votes, and now I wish I hadn't.
I'm glad to live in America, but now that I've been starting to learn how the government really behaves, I'm starting to not be as proud as I once was.
Posts: 142 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The question on who should vote brings in too many problems and too many nightmares, after all who decides who can vote and who can't? A voter has the ability to in theory have the power to change how things are run for good or ill. But when it comes to a point as you say when the majority of the people vote are "ignorant rednecks" to put it in an extreme (i seriously dont think that 80% of Amercian's are rednecks) and the state decides to limit the numbers who exactly will nolonger be allowed to vote? The ignorant uneducated people or some other minority that may have conflicting views with the state and thus are "accidentally" striken from the list and government buracracy suddenly kicks in that for some reason allows such a chnage to take place yet doesn't allow it to be removed once challenged.
The purpose of democracy that once perfected is the extension of the will of the people and the state trully gains the Mandate of Heaven for the state being a democracy IS the people. Back to voting, yes indeed it is a problem that once you get enough people voting with uninformed views it could become mob rule but how to avoid this? How would you create a true democracy? Who votes and who decides who votes?
Posts: 1567 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
First, I would highly recommend that everyone interested in this question read Aristotle's Politics. Secondly, the true genius of American Government is that it is neither a democracy or a republic. The founders of America saw the value in both and decided to pit the two against each other, in an attempt to keep them in check, and also to try and keep them from becoming corrupted. (Mind you, not corrupted in the sense of accepting bribes or otherwise, but corrupted in the sense of a aristocracy turing into an oligarchy, and a constitution to a democracy.)
Posts: 681 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
What we have is called a democratic republic. Our government is democratic, even though it is not a democracy.
Posts: 751 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't nessasarily mean America, I mean any nation-state in general. And wether or not we live in a society we can not only be proud of but know in our hearts whether it is a democracy in the sense the people choose or a dictatorship where a select few choose.
Posts: 1567 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Seeing a slight lack of interest I'll raise the stakes.
How would we make a democratic society where the will of the people is perfectly (as humanly possible) represented? What changes would have to be made to ensure the ability for leaders to come to power with yet the smallest amount of power power possible to prevent abuse? Or even if they do abuse it have a system where such abuses will be found and the perpatrators tried? A system where everyone can vote regarldess of sex/race/ethnic background/sex/sexual orientation etc but a system with empthasis on education so that those who vote make informed decisions when they vote.
How would we make a state that is democratic to such a degree that the people are never abused or oppressed?
Posts: 1567 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
what if i dont agree with mr orwell's rather vague statement? seems like most of your essay was based on that premise. maybe it was taken out of context? im not a fan of politics, though, so what do i know?
Posts: 28 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sid, it's a nice idea, but your premise is flawed. There is literally no way to make EVERYONE happy. It *cannot* be done. (Go to any planning meeting and you'll see this.) The good thing about our current ideal is that those who are unhappy can still voice their opinions and let others KNOW they're unhappy. They have an avenue for change and exchange of information. That's more than quite a few other countries have.
Posts: 262 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
My humble opinion is that the quality of our leaders is more important than the structure of our government.
If we had fewer power hungry crooks and God-haters on the bench and in Congress, and more humbly servant-hearteded leaders that make genuine attempts to honor their Creator's will for mankind, there would be some real improvements in our country, regardless of the governmental structure.
No, I'm not a utopianist. In fact, with all of the depravity and fustration in this country, it not only gives God's people a lifetime of work, but it tends to make us thirst more for His perfect blessings in our lives to come.
Posts: 72 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
There you have it the system is nolonger democratic if the people in power are religious zealots (to put an extreme) since of people of faith once power is handed over to them begin to see it as their perogative to spread their faith to the people which in of itself leads to persecution, hatred and resenemtent spoiling the democratic process which is not supposed to favor ANY side of the arguement but go instead with the wishes of the people decided through democratic processes.
After also remember the limiting who can run for office always leads to trouble since after all who decides the decider? The best solution I can think of is to edit the system to a poitn where anyone who trully wishes to change things may run for office and not have to be particullary rich/powerful to begin with in order to facilitate is election campaign for himself or for his party.
And turning a nation into happy go lucky good loving goodie two shoes won't solve the issue of true representative demoracy where the state fears the people which is what we should strive for.
Posts: 1567 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"If we had fewer power hungry crooks and God-haters on the bench and in Congress, and more humbly servant-hearteded leaders that make genuine attempts to honor their Creator's will for mankind, there would be some real improvements in our country, regardless of the governmental structure."
Hell, they could be servant-hearted Satanists and it'd be an improvement. I don't care if they pay lip service to ANY religion, provided they aren't completely self-centered. Let 'em hate God all they want.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
As I said, the faith of the Prince (to use a machiavellian term) should have no bearing on how affaires of state are conducted. In a democracy it doesn't matter if you bow 6 times a day or flail yourself with a whip you are all equal in the eyes of the state which should inversly be the eyes of the people looking into a mirror.
Posts: 1567 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"If we had fewer power hungry crooks and God-haters on the bench and in Congress, and more humbly servant-hearteded leaders that make genuine attempts to honor their Creator's will for mankind, there would be some real improvements in our country, regardless of the governmental structure.
No, I'm not a utopianist. In fact, with all of the depravity and fustration in this country, it not only gives God's people a lifetime of work, but it tends to make us thirst more for His perfect blessings in our lives to come"
i'm not sure where to begin on this one. what we NEED in office are people who don't really have an opinion about religion, or who at least can separate that from what is best for the nation. you know, contrary to what everyone sees on television on the "world news" not everyone in the united states is christian. not everyone believes in a higher power.
and you know what? that's okay. i'm sick of hearing how people, namely those who "call" themselves christians, want to complain about freedom of religion and how they should be allowed to publicly display their religion, while they are the ones oppressing those who simply don't agree with them. it's so hypocritical.
okay, i have to stop. i'm getting way to worked up, and i haven't been here long enough to be so bold without knowing how it will offend others, which is SO not my intent.
i will say this, though, as well, the comment about they could be satanists for all i care . . . research what a true satanist really worships before you use that tone to describe them. they actually have a lot of good ideas about enjoying life while we're here instead of wasting our lives away following rules that MEN wrote and say were those of god, that were actually used to try and force the people to conform (society control).
reread my post and couldn't remember where I was going with it, so it is deleted. It was something about something though... I think. Nah, probably not even that.
posted
Ah, the totalitarian rule in America. How I'd really like to believe that. I'm inclined to be a crazy leftist and assert strongly that George Bush somehow didn't win this election. Exit poll results indicate he should have lost which is pretty infuriating given how exit polls usually work. Then again, who's to say that the liberal side didn't intentionally sway the exit polls for the very reason that it would appear like election shenanigans.
What we certainly do have in America is the nightmare of anyone who really believes in a good Republican government (I don't mean Republican like the Party). We have a legion of people responsible for electing our government who are completely and totally uneducated on the issues they're voting on. The problem isn't the system, the system is fine, the problem is that people in America have lost sight of what it means to be a citizen in this great country. You're supposed to keep up to date on current events, keep informed as to what your leaders are doing, and keep informed as to what issues will be on your next ballot. This problem isn't just in the electoriate, but also in congress. A fair amount of congressmen have admitted to not reading the bulk of the bills they vote on. We've ceased being a nation of independent thinkers and started just going with whatever propaganda sounds best to us in both the macrocosm and the microcosm.
It's sickening. I don't believe we live in a Dictatorship, but I tend to think we might not be too much worse off if we did.
Posts: 68 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
Goood, I'm getting some flak. I know in a democracy it is impossible to make "everyone happy" but we can make it work in such a way that those who lost can be happy that they were able to voice their opinions as you said in a free and democratic manner properly informed by as best as we can manage it unbiased news netowrks, and a proper educational system that informs the people of events and debates it with them to not only gain their attention but to get them to look at it from different angles.
Posts: 1567 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"i'm not sure where to begin on this one. what we NEED in office are people who don't really have an opinion about religion, or who at least can separate that from what is best for the nation. you know, contrary to what everyone sees on television on the "world news" not everyone in the united states is christian. not everyone believes in a higher power."
It doesn't matter if everyone believes in a higher power or not. Belief is irrelevent to facts. And, if there is a higher power, and He has a will for us, then it is "good" to have rulers who make an honest attempt to facilitate the pursuit of that will.
So...since I DO believe in a higher power, my logic makes perfect sense to me, and was not intended to make people angry.
"What we certainly do have in America is the nightmare of anyone who really believes in a good Republican government (I don't mean Republican like the Party). We have a legion of people responsible for electing our government who are completely and totally uneducated on the issues they're voting on. The problem isn't the system, the system is fine, the problem is that people in America have lost sight of what it means to be a citizen in this great country."
I think you are on to something there. I think a major cause of this condition is that, as the government assumes more responsibility for people, the people, who are generally lazy if they can get away with it, let the government assume that responsibility, and become irresponsible themselves. Hence, the many things the government does for us -- education for example -- are the very things that we take no responsibility for with ourselves or our children.
Posts: 72 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
In terms of education that is something indeed is controversal. If we give it to the state then the state can try to be a good arbiter and not abuse its position HOWEVER the state if not a democracy can teach our children to believe what they believe is correct thus propaganda to the young. So how do we ensure a free education for all yet a good education that ensures that our children are well informed?
Posts: 1567 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
What does well informed even mean? There will always be confilct in anything you teach, even math. There is no one right way to make sure everyone gets the whole truth since the truth is entirely dependant on your own Point of View. In a certain local high school we had a teacher telling all of his students to make sure that they and their parents voted correctly or else the entire graduting class would be drafted. Was it wrong for him to inform the class of that? Depends on your point of view. Some argue that it still will happen, others that it won't happen. Some say he is lying and he knows it, and others say we have to respect his right to free speech. The whole topic is really complicated, and there just can't be, or shouldn't be, any perfect government or education system. Conflict creates innovation and inspires more (good and bad) than peace will. If everyone agreed, what fun is that?
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
DarkKnight, to me being well informed is knowing the facts of a matter without hearing much bais opinion on that matter. (No bais opinion would be pratictally impossible. At least in today's news.)
The problem I see with the teacher you mentioned is that he was telling his opinoion with apparently without any facts on why he came up with it. There is no reason why one shouldn't be aloud to voice their opinion, but it would be preferable for being "well informed" to know WHY it was decided, so that the listeners can decide if it makes sense to them as well.
Posts: 142 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
And therein lies the rub, what are the facts? What is a fact? Facts seem to depend on a person's point of view. Being well informed is almost impossible because what I believe will influence my perceptions of an event so what I considered my own well informed facts of the matter is complete rubbish to someone else. Well, except that I am always right Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think you're trying to be overly philisophical. I understand where you're coming from; I used to think the same, sort of. But I'll try to answer your question.
From dictionary.com on "Fact": "Knowledge or information based on real occurrences."
Now, you may disagree with what this means, which may be right, wrong, or neither, but you hopefully will not belirve that it says something else.
Posts: 142 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I might be overly philisophical about this whole thing. I just couldn't imagine any type of world or education system where the facts speak for themselves. We are all human and influenced by too many things to let that happen. We are sort of forced to interpert our facts based upon the interpertation of those facts presented to us by others. Like the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, was it a sneak attack on the United States or merely the Hirohito manuever?
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Plus I think you get more out of disagreeing than agreeing
I agree with this, as long as the argument is between people, and in my case, sometimes person, *cough,* who are open-minded and intelligent enough. (Normally open-mindedness comes from intelligence.)
I suppose we both agree that people develop opinions from facts, though, I don't think we'll completly change our stance on facts developing from opinions, or however you put it, at least not anytime soon or completely, which is a good thing. Though I am putting more thought into it now, then I had originaly thought I would.
Posts: 142 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
If one does not cheer to Monty Python, he must kick the bucket, ring down the curtain and go to join the Choir Invisible!
Posts: 2978 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
